Oh, England

[ahdkaw]

I'm sorry, but I consiuder it absolute insanity to suggest that kids in civilised nations with age-limits on certain substances do not know of the health implications. I took up smoking when I was 17 and was fully aware of the health concerns regarding cigarettes. I think it's shows a tremendous case of ignorance at the intelligence and personal choice of other human beings.

IMO, to show extreme images a la Bizarre magazine is the ultimate in insults. But it's okay according the anti-smoking brigade for young children to be exposed to such images whenever they walk into a newsagent to buy sweets/candy.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I'm sorry, but I consiuder it absolute insanity to suggest that kids in civilised nations with age-limits on certain substances do not know of the health implications. I took up smoking when I was 17 and was fully aware of the health concerns regarding cigarettes. I think it's shows a tremendous case of ignorance at the intelligence and personal choice of other human beings.

I'm talking about kids a lot younger than 17. You may have an idealistic notion of how intelligent kids can be, but it's unfounded. It's not as if civilisation is an all-pervading entity. Very young children can start smoking through imitation of a parent or friend without knowing the dangers.

IMO, to show extreme images a la Bizarre magazine is the ultimate in insults. But it's okay according the anti-smoking brigade for young children to be exposed to such images whenever they walk into a newsagent to buy sweets/candy

How is it an insult when apparently everyone already knows everything about the dangers of smoking? Please, don't try the "will someone think of the children being exposed to horrible images!" argument when you're endorsing children damaging themselves through smoking. Being exposed to unsightly images is less damaging that inhaling carcinogens on a regular basis.

If you're fully aware of the dangers, why even do it? Why support someone's choice to fuck themselves up when it's fully proven that it DOES? You may as well support someone's decision to cut themselves. Does it feel good? So what? It's clearly BAD.
I doubt that young people who start smoking are fully aware of the long-term consequences, or else they don't believe it will happen to them.

 

[ahdkaw]

I'm talking about kids a lot younger than 17. You may have an idealistic notion of how intelligent kids can be, but it's unfounded. It's not as if civilisation is an all-pervading entity. Very young children can start smoking through imitation of a parent or friend without knowing the dangers.

Correct, but how do extreme images help? It doesn't. What I'm talking about are legitimate law-abiding smokers being punished for their lifestyle choices. There is nothing anyone can say to me to stop me from smoking. If I want to increase my health risks, that is my choice. I hate all this, "I'm better than you because you smoke" crap.

How is it an insult when apparently everyone already knows everything about the dangers of smoking? Please, don't try the "will someone think of the children being exposed to horrible images!" argument when you're endorsing children damaging themselves through smoking. Being exposed to unsightly images is less damaging that inhaling carcinogens on a regular basis.

If you're fully aware of the dangers, why even do it? Why support someone's choice to fuck themselves up when it's fully proven that it DOES? You may as well support someone's decision to cut themselves. Does it feel good? So what? It's clearly BAD.
I doubt that young people who start smoking are fully aware of the long-term consequences, or else they don't believe it will happen to them.

It's an insult to the intelligence to every smoker. There is such a thing called addiction, not sure if you've heard of it.

I really don't see why non-smokers think they have a right to hassle smokers. You don't hear me hassling drivers because whenever I walk down a street I'm breathing in far more toxins than "second-hand smoke". In fact, when you are driving, you are breathing even more toxins that walking in the street. But oh no, that's okay because everyone drives.

If a child decides to start smoking, there is nothing anyone can say that will stop them. Why don't we ban cigarettes if you're that concerned? Criminalise the smokers, why not. Clearly all smokers are evil uncaring monsters.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Correct, but how do extreme images help?

Um, aversion therapy?

What I'm talking about are legitimate law-abiding smokers being punished for their lifestyle choices.

Aside from wondering how graphic images on packaging translates as "punishment" if you already know the consequences of smoking, it is immaterial that you're talking about just legitimate law-abiding smokers. There isn't one packaging for older smokers and one packaging for kids. If older smokers are addicted and uncaring, fuck 'em - they can put up with the graphic images if they mightprevent kids getting cancer because they don't know enough about the risks.

There is nothing anyone can say to me to stop me from smoking. If I want to increase my health risks, that is my choice. I hate all this, "I'm better than you because you smoke" crap.

That's not what I think. At worst, I just don't understand it, but clearly some people need to smoke and it's pointless trying to stop them. Unless, of course, they WANT to stop but can't.

There is such a thing called addiction, not sure if you've heard of it.

Addiction? Well, that is a curious word. I'll just nip to Wiktionary and check it out.

Wow! Oh no! A word I didn't know that can be used to blindly jam up my arguments!

Anyway, addiction can be prevented if people don't start smoking in the first place. And graphic warnings can contribute to that.

Would you say you are addicted? Even if you are, that doesn't seem to be the reason why you still smoke.

I really don't see why non-smokers think they have a right to hassle smokers.

Well, I'm not hassling. I was merely making the point that warnings on tobacco products are completely justified. You go ahead and smoke it down.

You don't hear me hassling drivers because whenever I walk down a street I'm breathing in far more toxins than "second-hand smoke". In fact, when you are driving, you are breathing even more toxins that walking in the street. But oh no, that's okay because everyone drives.

The only thing that bothers me about second-hand smoke is the smell, not the health risks. Don't start assuming things about my position, that's ridiculous. When my flatmate fills the house with weed smoke, I care only for the acrid stench.

If a child decides to start smoking, there is nothing anyone can say that will stop them.

That is a magisterially foolish argument. What if the child decides to start kicking puppies? Or eating nothing but sugar from the packet? Is there nothing that can or should be said to stop them? If a child was fully aware of the risks of smoking, the short and long-term consequences and health risks, they might NOT smoke. My point is that graphic warnings and adverts provide them with this information whether or not long-term smokers like yourself enjoy being told how unhealthy it is. It IS unhealthy, and a child without the full spectrum of information shouldn't do it. I suppose you'd endorse children getting shitfaced on brandy every day as well?

Criminalise the smokers, why not. Clearly all smokers are evil uncaring monsters.

Oh, tut tut. Bad form. Putting words in my mouth. Very bad.

Clearly all smokers are happy to put their health and lifespan beneath the comfort derived from smoking. It's when smokers don't know that their health and lifespan is going to be affected that fear tactics become justified.

 

[ahdkaw]

Um, aversion therapy?

It's not therapy, it's intimidation.

Aside from wondering how graphic images on packaging translates as "punishment" if you already know the consequences of smoking, it is immaterial that you're talking about just legitimate law-abiding smokers. There isn't one packaging for older smokers and one packaging for kids. If older smokers are addicted and uncaring, fuck 'em - they can put up with the graphic images if they mightprevent kids getting cancer because they don't know enough about the risks.

That's exactly the ignorant attitude I was expecting. Isn't actual education a better way to educate?

That's not what I think. At worst, I just don't understand it, but clearly some people need to smoke and it's pointless trying to stop them. Unless, of course, they WANT to stop but can't.

I know that's not what you think, I was just pointing out the attitude of some of the virulent anti-smokers out there who have their head up their arse. But exactly, a smoker, like any other addict, has to WANT to quit in order to quit. But scare tactics is not the way to go IMO (this is my whole point).

Addiction? Well, that is a curious word. I'll just nip to Wiktionary and check it out.

Wow! Oh no! A word I didn't know that can be used to blindly jam up my arguments!

Anyway, addiction can be prevented if people don't start smoking in the first place. And graphic warnings can contribute to that. Would you say you are addicted? Even if you are, that doesn't seem to be the reason why you still smoke.

Wiktionary lol.
It's all well and good not wanting people to start smoking, but there is an entire industry based around getting people to smoke. I am addicted of course, how can one not be addicted to nicotine when it's one of the most pernicious addictive substances known to man (and also a deadly poison in large doses); which is why e-cigarettes are having a hard time in proving their legality (you have to buy bottles of pure nic).

Well, I'm not hassling. I was merely making the point that warnings on tobacco products are completely justified. You go ahead and smoke it down.

Again, this is a generalisation and not about you. I understand your position on this extremely well now thanks, but I still disagree with you.

The only thing that bothers me about second-hand smoke is the smell, not the health risks. Don't start assuming things about my position, that's ridiculous. When my flatmate fills the house with weed smoke, I care only for the acrid stench.

As above, it was another generalisation regarding the anti-smoking movement, not you in particular.

That is a magisterially foolish argument. What if the child decides to start kicking puppies? Or eating nothing but sugar from the packet? Is there nothing that can or should be said to stop them? If a child was fully aware of the risks of smoking, the short and long-term consequences and health risks, they might NOT smoke. My point is that graphic warnings and adverts provide them with this information whether or not long-term smokers like yourself enjoy being told how unhealthy it is. It IS unhealthy, and a child without the full spectrum of information shouldn't do it. I suppose you'd endorse children getting shitfaced on brandy every day as well?

You misconstrue my point here. Brandy is tasty though, but I doubt that children could afford the good stuff.

Oh, tut tut. Bad form. Putting words in my mouth. Very bad.

Clearly all smokers are happy to put their health and lifespan beneath the comfort derived from smoking. It's when smokers don't know that their health and lifespan is going to be affected that fear tactics become justified.

Please understand, none of this is a personal attack. How many smokers do you know that were not aware of the health risks of smoking prior to the vile images being printed on the pack?

Fear tactics are never justified. It was fear that allowed Bush to invade Iraq, and that didn't work out too well.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

It's not therapy, it's intimidation.

Well, that's your interpretation of it. It would only be intimidation if it went like this: "If you smoke, I'll cut you." Nothing is exaggerated in these warnings, it's entirely factual. How would you prefer such a vital message to be mediated, in some low-impact fashion or a high-impact graphic style that is very difficult to ignore.

That's exactly the ignorant attitude I was expecting. Isn't actual education a better way to educate?

Please explain exactly how my attitude is ignorant. I really don't see any point that is ignorant. Some people don't want to be educated; how many people in my school health education classes smoked? Lots. If you can't reach children at school, and some don't want to be reached, then you slap graphic stuff over the product you want to inform them about. It's the most effective way.

But exactly, a smoker, like any other addict, has to WANT to quit in order to quit. But scare tactics is not the way to go IMO (this is my whole point).

My point was that scare tactics are justified to prevent a situation where people get addicted in the first place, when they potentially aren't fully aware of the consequences

It's all well and good not wanting people to start smoking, but there is an entire industry based around getting people to smoke. I am addicted of course, how can one not be addicted to nicotine when it's one of the most pernicious addictive substances known to man (and also a deadly poison in large doses); which is why e-cigarettes are having a hard time in proving their legality (you have to buy bottles of pure nic).

Ok, but do you CARE that you're addicted? Do you want to quit?
Fortunately, in this country at least, advertising tobacco now doesn't happen. There is an industry that CREATES smokable products, but they can no longer advertise - simply rely on brand loyalty and addiction. But there IS an industry based around getting people to stop smoking. It's not as if children are bombarded with adverts and are powerless in the face of tobacco corporations.

You misconstrue my point here. Brandy is tasty though, but I doubt that children could afford the good stuff.

You said that if a child smokes and wants to do it then there's nothing anyone can do. How did I misconstrue your point? By the same logic we should allow children to do whatever, because they want to. Making a throwaway comment about the price of brandy hardly engages with my argument.

How many smokers do you know that were not aware of the health risks of smoking prior to the vile images being printed on the pack?

In my experience, smokers are aware of the risks in a vague sense, but don't really consider it. Having vile images - which, of course, are factual representations of what can and often does happen to smokers - on the pack might serve to bring this home.

I still don't see why you care about the vile images if you think everyone already knows how dangerous it is.

Fear tactics are never justified. It was fear that allowed Bush to invade Iraq, and that didn't work out too well.

That's quite a change of subject, there. I'll just wheel the conversation back. If you think fear tactics are never justified then you must presumably also think that lies are never justified for any reason. Is that so?

Let's see what fear tactics could do, and what the consequences might be without them: A child starts smoking at 10, is soon addicted, spends large amounts on cigarettes, begins to develop persistent health problems, then his brain explodes with cancer and his lungs come out of his ears.

Graphic images of diseased lungs coupled with "YOU WILL FUCKING DIE" warnings on the packet give him potentially some nightmares, but his lungs don't come out and he doesn't die of cancer.

I have used extreme examples, but then a lot of people do die of cancer, so . . . hardly inappropriate.

What if you used fear tactics to stop a child from running into the road? Would that be unjustified?

 

[ahdkaw]

Well, that's your interpretation of it. It would only be intimidation if it went like this: "If you smoke, I'll cut you." Nothing is exaggerated in these warnings, it's entirely factual. How would you prefer such a vital message to be mediated, in some low-impact fashion or a high-impact graphic style that is very difficult to ignore.

Okay, one step at a time. My interpretation is yes, it is intimidation.

Please explain exactly how my attitude is ignorant. I really don't see any point that is ignorant. Some people don't want to be educated; how many people in my school health education classes smoked? Lots. If you can't reach children at school, and some don't want to be reached, then you slap graphic stuff over the product you want to inform them about. It's the most effective way.

It was actually a reference to your own words "fuck 'em" in reference to smokers.

My point was that scare tactics are justified to prevent a situation where people get addicted in the first place, when they potentially aren't fully aware of the consequences

I understand. But again, I disagree with the methods used.

Ok, but do you CARE that you're addicted? Do you want to quit?
Fortunately, in this country at least, advertising tobacco now doesn't happen. There is an industry that CREATES smokable products, but they can no longer advertise - simply rely on brand loyalty and addiction. But there IS an industry based around getting people to stop smoking. It's not as if children are bombarded with adverts and are powerless in the face of tobacco corporations.

LOL, of course I care, but I don't want to quit just yet. I thought that would be abundantly clear from my earlier posts.

You said that if a child smokes and wants to do it then there's nothing anyone can do. How did I misconstrue your point? By the same logic we should allow children to do whatever, because they want to. Making a throwaway comment about the price of brandy hardly engages with my argument.

Correct. But there is a difference between allowing children to what they want and a child doing what he/she wants. It's all well and good you wanting to "protect the children," but as I stated, children do what they want. If a supervisory adult is not there, who's going to stop them from kicking that dog or throwing that cat?

In my experience, smokers are aware of the risks in a vague sense, but don't really consider it. Having vile images - which, of course, are factual representations of what can and often does happen to smokers - on the pack might serve to bring this home.

In a vague sense? What even though for years and years the evidence all points to various cancers, and you think that most grown adult smokers are only vaguely aware? Strange that non-smokers seemingly know more about smoking than smokers. Hmmmm.

I still don't see why you care about the vile images if you think everyone already knows how dangerous it is.

My point exactly. There is no reason to print vile images on pack if everyone already knows the risks, which the majority of smokers do.

That's quite a change of subject, there. I'll just wheel the conversation back. If you think fear tactics are never justified then you must presumably also think that lies are never justified for any reason. Is that so?

It was an example of leveraging fear in the populace to pass unreasonable laws, etc.

What if you used fear tactics to stop a child from running into the road? Would that be unjustified?

Come on now, using fear tactics to stop a child running into the road? No you don't do that, you advise them of the dangers using reason not fear.

 

[CosmicSpork]

I can't be arsed to read all of that so I'm simply going to say how I feel with complete disregard for whatever has been said previously

I don't like cigarette smoke, I have a slight allergy to it. I love the fact that we have a smoking ban in place now, until it happened I couldn't very easily enjoy a night out as I'd end up feeling ill and stinking of cigarettes... I went on a friends stag do last weekend and had a great time, and didn't once feel ill due to cigarette smoke.

My in-law's smoke like chimneys and I can only spend a short amount of time at their house before I have to get some air. My wife and I often pipe up telling them that they should stop as they are getting older now and it's obviously starting to effect their health. My wife's mother already has enough other health issues without adding to them further.

Another annoyance I have is my next door neighbour, who regardless of how much I have requested they don't, they smoke outside their backdoor, which goes straight into my kitchen extractor fan, and into my house, which is in no way welcome. Inconsiderate smokers drive me nuts, I don't want to breathe the death fumes thank you.

As for the imagery, addictions are deep rooted, sometimes it takes something shocking to hit home. The method has been used in other countries with success before it was implemented here. There is no point in trying to sugar coat it, cigarettes are proven to cause damage to your health, if that information were to be hidden or covered up with a positive message then what kind of society would we be? Nobody is being forced to quit smoking, but the information has to hit home else nobody would quit.

I probably have more to say, but I'm sitting on the toilet right now as I type this. Yes, I am a Toilet-Typing addict, I will get help one day...

 

[ahdkaw]

Just a quick response regarding 'second hand smoke', there is no real evidence (as far as I am aware of right now) linking second hand smoke to health issues later in life.

However, there is a ton of evidence pointing to exhaust fumes/dead burnt dinosaurs.

 

[CosmicSpork]

Regardless of evidence or lack of evidence, I have the right to not to have to breathe it in and have the possibility of it effecting my health forced upon me. Just because second hand smoke might not cause health issues, doesn't mean that I have to sit there and take in the horrible smell and feel ill for it.

As for evidence, one person that does come to mind is Roy Castle... admittedly he was a jazz player and will have taken in far more second hand smoke than I ever would, but all the evidence points to that being the cause of his lung cancer and subsequent death since he was a non-smoker and never had been a smoker.

And as for fossil fuels, I do agree with what you're saying. I am a driver, I live out in the sticks and have to drive in order to get to work, I have no alternative at this time. My drive involves going through the countryside, then onto a dual carriageway and almost straight to my workplace from there without going through populated areas, so to a certain degree I feel a bit better about it. I am all too keen for alternatives to be made available and commercially viable, assuming I could afford it I would be one of the first to buy a car that doesn't expel harmful fumes... but until then, I have to work, I have to travel, and that's the way it is... it's a necessity for me.

It is not, and never will be a necessity for someone to smoke.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Okay, one step at a time. My interpretation is yes, it is intimidation.

If that is how you define intimidation - the usage of a factual consequence of an action to dissuade someone from performing that action - then it's intimidation to use any kind of true horror story to outline the dangers of something. Intimidation implies that someone is going to hurt or threaten you for noncompliance. Graphic warnings don't intimidate as the only hurting is going to come from the smoking itself.

It was actually a reference to your own words "fuck 'em" in reference to smokers.

It's not ignorance to be cheerfully irreverant.

Correct. But there is a difference between allowing children to what they want and a child doing what he/she wants. It's all well and good you wanting to "protect the children," but as I stated, children do what they want. If a supervisory adult is not there, who's going to stop them from kicking that dog or throwing that cat?

And as soon as a child is discovered doing some bad, dangerous or uninformed, most people take it on themselves to educate them otherwise.

In a vague sense? What even though for years and years the evidence all points to various cancers, and you think that most grown adult smokers are only vaguely aware? Strange that non-smokers seemingly know more about smoking than smokers. Hmmmm.

By a vague sense I mean that I'm aware, in a vague sense, that I don't have a good diet and it might catch up with me one day. However, I don't actually consider it beyond the abstract because I'm too happy stuffing sugared cheese up my face. Most nice things are bad for you and most people don't really engage with this fact until they're getting lard vacuumed out of their aorta.

My point exactly. There is no reason to print vile images on pack if everyone already knows the risks, which the majority of smokers do.

My point exactly! The majority. Which means some smokers, like young smokers, do not know the risks. The graphic warnings are as much a deterrent as a factual reminder.

It was an example of leveraging fear in the populace to pass unreasonable laws, etc.

It's quite a different example. It's known that smoking causes all kinds of harm, it seems perfectly reasonable to allow anti-smoking advertising based on this fact and I can't think of many other opinions on it. As much as smokers go on about choice, and how they all know the dangers, some people do NOT and such people form part of the target demographic of anti-smoking campaigns.

Come on now, using fear tactics to stop a child running into the road? No you don't do that, you advise them of the dangers using reason not fear.

Well, this is like the difference between guns and smoking. Running into the road has a very clear and defined consequence. It doesn't take much to educate a child about the importance of stopping, looking, and listening. But smoking does not have a clear and defined consequence. A child can't see the link between lighting up that first smoke and coughing out your larynx forty years down the line. A child has to contend with the glamorised presentation of smoking in the media, despite the removal of pro-smoking adverts, and what's the best way of educating a child about the dangers of something quite nebulous and undefined? You use the unvarnished truth. You show them rotting lungs and people with holes in their necks. Then and only then does the chain of cause and effect become as clear as what happens when you run onto a road, or point a gun at someone.

 

[ahdkaw]

Jesus. So far up your own proverbial arse it's unreal. :roll:

You act like you know everything about smokers, when in reality you know virtually nothing.

I'm finished on this thread, no point in arguing with anti-smokers, who go around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around.

I know you hate smokers. I get it. Get over it, it's not worth it. Mods can get things wrong too.

Let's scream MURDER from the rooftops because that's got everything to do with smokers, because as we ALL know smokers are just brainless, murderous, rapists who don't care about anyone or anything. In fact, you sound like a religious person gouing on at a dirty Athiest. Can't you see that?

Live and let live? Or do you want to have another go at me for making my own personal choices in life?

EDIT: THis is what happens when I post before coffee! Sorry.

EDIT2: I've calmed down a bit now, I will try again with a better post later.

Intimidation: Also applies to utilising graphic images and words to beat down the opposition.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Jesus. So far up your own proverbial arse it's unreal. :roll:

You act like you know everything about smokers, when in reality you know virtually nothing.

I'm finished on this thread, no point in arguing with anti-smokers, who go around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around.

I know you hate smokers. I get it. Get over it, it's not worth it. Mods can get things wrong too.

Let's scream MURDER from the rooftops because that's got everything to do with smokers, because as we ALL know smokers are just brainless, murderous, rapists who don't care about anyone or anything. In fact, you sound like a religious person gouing on at a dirty Athiest. Can't you see that?

Live and let live? Or do you want to have another go at me for making my own personal choices in life?

Warned. To be honest I don't have to put up with that kind of thing. I was being entirely reasonable and you accuse me of being up my proverbial arse, instead of actually engaging ANY of my points.

You're once again making out that I believe things I DON'T believe. Smoking is known to be dangerous, some people who start smoking do so without being aware of the consequences, and that is why I think graphic packaging is justified. If you can find something I said in my last post that was wrong or factually inaccurate or the product of bias over proof, please point it out. Your annoyance seems to stem more from me disagreeing with you than any particular argument.

Honestly, very disappointing.

 

[ahdkaw]

Warned. To be honest I don't have to put up with that kind of thing. I was being entirely reasonable and you accuse me of being up my proverbial arse, instead of actually engaging ANY of my points.

You're once again making out that I believe things I DON'T believe. Smoking is known to be dangerous, some people who start smoking do so without being aware of the consequences, and that is why I think graphic packaging is justified. If you can find something I said in my last post that was wrong or factually inaccurate or the product of bias over proof, please point it out. Your annoyance seems to stem more from me disagreeing with you than any particular argument.

Honestly, very disappointing.

As can be seen in my Edit, my post was pre-coffee.

Anyway, I just feel that we aren't actually getting anywhere here, it feels like we are going around in circles (which was where my original intent lay), then I just went on a rant. Sorry you had the feel my wrath.

But I know your position. You don't mind the graphic images on cigarette packets, I get it. I honestly do. I just don't see the point in continuing this any further.

A warning doesn't put me off though, when I'm angry I post angry. And then I calm down and backtrack. It's just the way I am built.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

As can be seen in my Edit, my post was pre-coffee.

That is hardly a compelling justification.

A warning doesn't put me off though, when I'm angry I post angry. And then I calm down and backtrack. It's just the way I am built.

Then wait till you're not angry or you'll get warned until you're banned.

 

[ahdkaw]

If you want to ban me for name calling (or anything else) then by all means do so.

You could alternatively fling a few insults my way to balance the boat a little.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

If you want to ban me for name calling (or anything else) then by all means do so.

You could alternatively fling a few insults my way to balance the boat a little.

I don't want to ban you, aside from this exchange I agree with most posts of yours I see, but there's no excuse for name calling even in the heat of the moment. That's that beauty of forums - you have time to cool off when you might not in a real time debate.

 

[ahdkaw]

I don't want to ban you, aside from this exchange I agree with most posts of yours I see, but there's no excuse for name calling even in the heat of the moment. That's that beauty of forums - you have time to cool off when you might not in a real time debate.

Fairy snuff, I just get frustrated sometimes. Thanks for your calm and clear response.

And being more of a discordian/chaoist/occultist than an athiest means I often go off on rants with no real purpose in mind. I do try to keep it to a minimum nevertheless.

I think I will stick to the humour side of discordianism where possible from now on.

EDIT: I also withdraw my previous shouty shouty stuff.

 

[boonw]

Another annoyance I have is my next door neighbour, who regardless of how much I have requested they don't, they smoke outside their backdoor, which goes straight into my kitchen extractor fan, and into my house, which is in no way welcome. Inconsiderate smokers drive me nuts, I don't want to breathe the death fumes thank you.

You know, I am actually very VERY against all these regulations the anti-smoking nazis have placed in, but I cant stand inconsiderate people. I personally like cigarette smoke but I know people who do have allergies to it. Irritatingly, after school, nearly all the smokers are selfish pricks and are to lazy to walk across the street to smoke, thus letting everyone who is looking for a bus breathe clean air.

I really dont know why they cant realize that just because they can do something, it doesnt mean they should. Smoking is more or less a novelty, smoking near other people is the equivalent to blasting your speakers with shitty music ten times higher then is humanly possible.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Thanks for your calm and clear response.

Likewise!