ESR - User: sonic

cigarettes, they give me a reason to smoke.
they give me a reason to roll a blunt if i don't have any,

they give me me a, reason to smoke when i'm setting a bong,
they give me the, means to roll a phat one, that jus doesn't wanna go,
they give me the reason to smoke when i'm all alone.

and above all, they make me feel damn fuckin invinci-ble.

<< prev next >>
2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14

45100 Hits

<< Comment #1 @ 21:39 UTC, 14 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

shokd

Yea, but most women cannot stand kissing an ashtray, aslo it MAY shorten your life it that matters.

I smoked for 20 years, glad I quit. Food tastes much better, ti me anyway.

Edited by shokd at 21:41 GMT, 14th Feb 2006

<< Comment #14 @ 02:54 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #1

I don't think it was because you smoked.

<< Comment #20 @ 03:48 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

shokd - Reply to #14

> I don't think it was because you smoked. ?

you don't think *what* was because I smoked. ?

please elaborate..... I'm an old fart.

<< Comment #2 @ 22:07 UTC, 14 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

8bitlobster

pld

<< Comment #3 @ 22:15 UTC, 14 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

the_sYntinel

ur life is a cigarette, dude.

<< Comment #4 @ 22:47 UTC, 14 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

tbone '

i hate smoking.

<< Comment #5 @ 22:52 UTC, 14 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

voodoochopstiks

That rush you get when pulling some smoke, is how us nonsmokers feel all the time.

Is feeling normal better if you usually feel like crap?

25%

<< Comment #6 @ 23:13 UTC, 14 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Ari0ch - Reply to #5

true genious

<< Comment #16 @ 02:55 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #6

not so much true genius

<< Comment #62 @ 17:19 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Ari0ch - Reply to #16

i was being ironic but i didnt know ppl really thought that, or i guess they do, judging by the [+].
imo, and its the only thing i can say about it, ppl should start by looking at their own habits and try to improve themselves rather than bullying ppl with their habits. I wonder why ppl need to give out lessons to everybody all the time.

<< Comment #65 @ 17:34 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #62

I have no idea what you said.

<< Comment #118 @ 15:46 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

imbaczek - Reply to #16

so much true troll

<< Comment #9 @ 00:29 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Jamerio ' - Reply to #5

The perfect analogy.

<< Comment #10 @ 01:16 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

gastfreund - Reply to #5

I stopped smoking after ~10 years a few month ago, and yet I dont feel so rushed all the time...

<< Comment #12 @ 01:30 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #5

That makes no sense whatsoever, you show a basic lack of understanding of what cigarettes contain and how it affects the human organism. Nicotine is a stimulant to the central nervous system, how would not smoking provide that stimulant effect? That makes no sense whatsoever.

<< Comment #21 @ 03:53 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

voodoochopstiks - Reply to #12

Nicotine isn't classed as stimulantia afaik, but mostly just plain addictive, while not smoking, you suffer from abstinence, the longer the time, the more worried/nervous/uncomfortable you get. Some people say they get a 'rush' etc, but this is either very small or imagined imo, at least I haven't gotten it the few times I've smoked. All that cigarette does is make you feel ok again, since you've filled your craving for the nicotine, if you have no craving for nicotine, you're feeling fine without pulling soot and crap into your lungs.

<< Comment #24 @ 08:48 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Lukas - Reply to #21

You're right, it's not a stimulant, but addictive. Also the habit is 'addictive' for lots of ppl. Quite a stupid addiction. Makes me wonder everytime what makes ppl start smoking..

<< Comment #30 @ 12:08 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

voodoochopstiks - Reply to #24

because it looks so goddamn cool :(

<< Comment #31 @ 12:48 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

revoN - Reply to #24

Nowadays you can see even little kids smoking. I guess because it's 'cool' and 'adult stuff'.

It could be due to your friends who smoke so you start smoking too.

<< Comment #64 @ 17:29 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

way2ez4gtv - Reply to #31

was out monday, half term and there were sooo many 15 yo about drinkin and like all were smoking, guess they thought it made them look older and cool or sumin :/

<< Comment #75 @ 20:23 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #64

Newsflash: it DOES make you look cool. What makes an individual think another is cool is rarely a purely conscious decision, it is based on elements which have become embedded in the psyche and what Jung would call the collective unconscious. If you don't think smoking makes you look cool you have seen any film noir I guess.

<< Comment #82 @ 00:23 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

way2ez4gtv - Reply to #75

most people theses days look and think, they taste of shit and will get cancer.

back in the day noir it was cool.

only person who foes it cool theses days is woverine coz he cant get cancer.... or aids the gay bastard

<< Comment #84 @ 01:14 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #82

You can't pretend people think like that else they wouldn't elect idiot officials, drink themselves into oblivion and slave at underpaid jobs until they die. People could KNOW they'd get cancer and they'd still smoke for a dozen reasons some of which seem utterly trivial to the non-smoker.

<< Comment #85 @ 02:01 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

way2ez4gtv - Reply to #84

most non smokers?

i dout the smokers care. or they wouldnt smoke

<< Comment #38 @ 14:19 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

smurkey - Reply to #21

actually nicotine IS a stimulant. Any dimwit should know that.

<< Comment #54 @ 15:50 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Lukas - Reply to #38

Well...it does something to your body. But seriously..nicotine does not in the slightest way cause arousal like other drugs do.
There have been animal experiments showing animals not getting addicted to nicotine, while they did get addicted to alcohol etc. So they didnt get stimulated, there was no reason to try and get another dose. The animals were able to administer themselves a drug by pressing buttons.

<< Comment #88 @ 03:07 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #38

hahahah someone deleted my reply or something. smurkey is a TOOLBAG. that is all.

<< Comment #44 @ 14:59 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

zealot - Reply to #21

you definitely get a 'rush' when smoking a ciggie... you saying this only means you have no idea what you're talking about.
heavy smokers tend to get it only on the first cig of the day though - non-smokers would get it all the time.

<< Comment #74 @ 20:21 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #21

Some people say they get a 'rush' etc, but this is either very small or imagined imo, at least I haven't gotten it the few times I've smoked.

Great so because it didn't happen to you a few times that makes all the scientific research lies and the known FACTS about the ways chemicals affect the human body. I don't smoke and don't plan on starting but that doesn't require to me to have an irrational compulsion to ignore the facts and lie to feel better about myself. You're as bad as 'mothers against drunk driving'.

<< Comment #39 @ 14:25 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

hnns - Reply to #5

uhmmmmmmmmm wrong.

<< Comment #7 @ 23:50 UTC, 14 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

MAKO

How apropriate

MPs have voted by a huge margin to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4709258.stm

Roll on summer 2007

<< Comment #8 @ 00:28 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Jamerio ' - Reply to #7

MPs have voted by a huge margin to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England.

This is the best thing our government have done in a long time.
Still, it's gonna cause no end of fights.
Trying telling a bunch of townie 30 somethings to put their fags out. No thx.

<< Comment #17 @ 02:56 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #8

erm, no. that's one of the worst stupidest things I've ever heard. your government is so fucking communist, it's a disgrace. seriously, take a good look at yourselves.

<< Comment #22 @ 03:56 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

voodoochopstiks - Reply to #17

if people don't like the decision, they won't vote their MP representative back in again, that's the difference to communism.

I'm all for it, they've done it in Sweden, and I like going out a lot more now.

<< Comment #23 @ 04:17 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #22

no, no, I'm afraid there's no difference at all. you don't seem to get it. YOU PEOPLE ARE BRAINWASHED. YOU'RE IGNORANT. you allow your government to sodomize you and rule your lives. you know nothing of freedom. it is very, very sad.

<< Comment #26 @ 09:21 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Bluder - Reply to #23

i *think* its mostly about the bar workers and how they feel after 8 hours of second hand smoking.

still i wanna smoke while drinking beer =(

<< Comment #27 @ 09:41 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Baxter` - Reply to #23

Civil liberties mean nothing this day and age.

:/

<< Comment #28 @ 11:21 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

voodoochopstiks - Reply to #23

Bah, Freedom, America has butchered, raped and murdered this word as of late, it has lost all it's meaning, and is beginning to become a curse rather than something wonderful.

Brainwashed? Ignorant? Allowing my government to sodomize me? Sounds a whole lot like the Unites States to me...

"Liberating" countries, while monitoring the phone calls of it's people, and allowing the country to be run by lobbying corporations.

I prefer a government I voted for rather than some corporation who's taken power. Where I spend my money shouldn't have to influence my politics.

Edited by voodoochopstiks at 11:21 GMT, 15th Feb 2006

10%

<< Comment #29 @ 12:02 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #28

hey jackass.. read my post or don't fucking reply

<< Comment #103 @ 09:54 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

dezje - Reply to #29

Typical American.

<< Comment #33 @ 12:52 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

revoN - Reply to #23

You mean the American style of freedom right?

<< Comment #35 @ 13:35 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #33

what?

<< Comment #72 @ 18:30 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

revoN - Reply to #35

You're talking about freedom so I'm wondering what's your definition of it? Are you referring to the type of freedom you got in the US of A?

<< Comment #89 @ 03:08 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #72

I'm referring to freedom.

<< Comment #25 @ 09:17 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Bluder - Reply to #22

yeah they have and i hate it =(

<< Comment #149 @ 18:45 UTC, 21 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

dubcat - Reply to #22

agreed. the "point and laugh at smokers standing outside in the freezing cold" part is a really amusing addition to a night out!

<< Comment #34 @ 13:05 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Jamerio ' - Reply to #17

No, Our government is stepping in because the people who smoke are doing nothing more than...
Killing themselves. Putting a huge strain on the NHS (look it up) and killing/infecting 1000's of others with passive smoking.
It's crazy it's been around this long. Why the fuck should I have go into public places where smoking is legal and come out stinking like an ashtray and knowing that each time I do I'm getting my life shortened?

If smokers want to do that then fine, but they can huddle in their designated spots and bum fags of each other and kill themselves from now on.
Smokings not cool anymore and if people are too stupid to weak to realise that then this is exactly what governments are for.
It's a 2500 pound fine, still going to cause riots though.

Take drugs, smoke do what you want, but don't expect others to suffer from your addiction. Restored faith in Tony Blair.

12%

<< Comment #36 @ 13:36 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #34

so you admit that your government controls you? ok, that's all I wanted to know. have fun with that.

<< Comment #59 @ 16:13 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

reslox - Reply to #36

total freedom is a paradox and only exists in the illogical framework constructed by your abhorrent mind. in any case, a non smoker should have the choice of not breathing in smoke. The government is just legislating courtesy, not removing civil liberties. smokers can still smoke, but at home or outside, where they dont affect the majority of ppl (who are non smokers and dont appreciate that shit). can't see much wrong with majority rule, it's better than the alternative

14%

<< Comment #66 @ 17:35 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #59

no.

<< Comment #142 @ 19:02 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Shrike - Reply to #59

LOL 'the government is 'legislating courtesy' ... brilliant .. nearly wet my pants at that one ...

<< Comment #145 @ 15:39 UTC, 19 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

reslox - Reply to #142

almost all laws are basically legislating civility and/or courtesy using ethics. do some wider reading or dont bother replying. i was going to say "grow up" but you're 36 man :/ smokers could say "true civility cant be legislated, the idea has to be understood and agreed with" but nobody's grasped this and i'd be only be providing ammunition against my original statement. oops! :) or not, seeing as education sometimes isnt the problem, it's the lack of empathy; but that just returns us to education/understanding. make yourself scarce

Edited by reslox at 15:48 GMT, 19th Feb 2006

<< Comment #146 @ 21:30 UTC, 19 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Shrike - Reply to #145

I just don't happen to agree with your point that's all. There can be no such thing as legislating courtesy. What is considered courteous to one person can just as easily be considered rude by someone else. There are of course laws governing behaviour such as agressive behaviour etc but on the whole courtesy can not be legislated....

'almost all laws are basically legislating civility and/or courtesy using ethics' - What is that supposed to mean. Laws are made by the legislative body to provide a framework for society to operate in .. it has nothing to do with being civil or courteous ... those are all behavioural characteristics and have nothing to do with the law per se ...

<< Comment #147 @ 17:51 UTC, 20 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

reslox - Reply to #146

Laws are made by the legislative body to provide a framework for society to operate in

u think the law is there to tell ppl what to do? i think you'll find that wherever there is a consensus, there is a law upholding that dominant view. for example, we mostly agree that we wouldn't like to have our own posessions stolen and so legislation reflects this. u don't think that's an example of legislating civility? u think there's some "natural law" preventing theft? smoking bans have been implemented elsewhere, including three U.S states. if that's not an example of courtesy being legislated in accordance with the dominant view, i dont know what is.

What is considered courteous to one person can just as easily be considered rude by someone else

yes it's true that ethics are subjective and that's why laws differ from culture to culture. the laws in other societies reflect their own ethical guidelines. when the government tried to go against the will of the ppl in the UK (regarding the poll tax) a slew of demonstrations prevented the law being passed. democracy is majority rule, and if you're in the minority then you're shit out of luck. unless u can make me rethink my views, i'd like it if u didnt respond

<< Comment #86 @ 02:28 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Jamerio ' - Reply to #36

Of course they do. EVERYONE is controlled to some degree. I know you think your're you own boss who says waht he wants behind a keyboard, but that will never get you anywhere IRL and not much further online.

People need rules. Most people are like sheep and the goverment are the hurders.
Without the hurders the sheep get lost, or eaten by wolves, or turn into wolves. The general population are simply too stupid to look after themselves or be trusted to live in a world without rules.

What you think with no government there would be no wars, or famine, we would all be driving around in million dollar cars and sipping caladas in our seaside mansions?

It would be total chaos. The government are stupid at times, but without them it would be like the old times, people raping and pillaging, trying to colonise places.
Governments were put up to combat the flaws of mankind and make things more civilised.
That simple.

Edited by Jamerio at 02:29 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #90 @ 03:09 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #86

again, that's all I wanted to know. you know your government owns you and you're ok with it, you sad little boy. didn't any of you ever listen to what mister Eric Blair ever said?

<< Comment #148 @ 18:42 UTC, 21 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

dubcat - Reply to #36

see. the thing is that we know we're beeing controlled (which alot of people in 'the land of freedom' doesn't) and we're ok with it. atleast when it comes to things like these.

I'd rather have someone tell me what to do (and beeing able to take my own responsibilty if I don't) than beeing told that I'm free to do whatever I want when I really isn't.

so yeah, I'd say I'm ok with it.

<< Comment #76 @ 20:29 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #34

Why the fuck should I have go into public places where smoking is legal and come out stinking like an ashtray and knowing that each time I do I'm getting my life shortened?

Why should we have to go into a public place knowing you might be there? Oh yeah it's called civil liberty. Trust an idiot like you to want to talk away all the ones that you don't agree with though.

<< Comment #105 @ 10:28 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Jamerio ' - Reply to #76

Dumb and angry as usual with stupid answers. You obviously don't step foot outside the door anyway.
Anyone as angry and bitter as you was clearly abused by their step dad.
Don't worry Thorin, if being a twat about everything makes you forget then that's cool.

Edited by Jamerio at 10:50 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #131 @ 00:38 UTC, 17 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #105

good work ignoring all the points you got OWNED on lol. if thinking of child abuse is all that can make you happy with your below average intellect good luck with that lol :D

<< Comment #50 @ 15:29 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

mammon - Reply to #17

Wtf? Banning cigarettes is just as bad as banning pot, both wont make you kill people or impair your ability to drive, both will kill you in the long run and both are a starter drug so your government is communistic as well.

<< Comment #53 @ 15:48 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

hnns - Reply to #50

except pot wont kill anyone in the long run and is not a "starter drug", no more than alcohol.

<< Comment #60 @ 16:43 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

mammon - Reply to #53

Pot causes lung cancer just like cigarettes do (actually it contains more cancerous substances but you smoke less joints than cigarettes) and is just as typical starter drug as cigarettes OR alcohol.

<< Comment #83 @ 01:10 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

hnns - Reply to #60

there haven't been any epidemiological proof that cannabis causes lung cancer, nor will you find a cancer death victim directly related to use of cannabis. No smoke is good for you, and you're probably reffering to the carcinogenic('polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons', look it up) which admittedly cannabis does contain, but the research linking cannabis to cancer simply isn't there, while there are many who claim it doesn't. Fact is it hasn't been researched nearly as much as tobacco, meanwhile media and schools have no problem feeding the public lies, propoganda about the dangers of this "drug".

You think cannabis, cigarettes and alcohol are all "starter" drugs? Sure.. whatever.

Edited by hnns at 01:12 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #87 @ 02:31 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Ignignokt - Reply to #83

Actually studies show that alcohol and cigarettes are the "starter" drugs if such a term can be used. Cannabis on the other hand is not.

<< Comment #139 @ 15:06 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

gastfreund - Reply to #87

Tell me what you want to prove and I´ll find you at least half a dozen 'studies' that prove whatever you like...

<< Comment #143 @ 19:05 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Shrike - Reply to #139

wanking is good for you .... ;)

<< Comment #119 @ 16:39 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

mammon - Reply to #83

Pot contains carcinogens + carcinogens cause cancer = Pot causes cancer.
There is no exact definition of a starter drug but for me it means a drug that has a "society" around it that can help you obtain harder drugs.

<< Comment #140 @ 15:08 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

hnns - Reply to #119

OK MR. Simpleton

<< Comment #18 @ 02:57 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #8

Trying telling a bunch of townie 30 somethings to put their fags out. No thx.

wow, nevermind. I realize where your gayness and stupidity comes from now.

<< Comment #11 @ 01:27 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #7

Actually I hit the wrong button, this was meant to be directed at jameridiot. By your roll on summer 2007 comment I'm assuming you're not in favour of it and awaiting the next elections.

<< Comment #13 @ 01:53 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

MAKO - Reply to #11

I'm very much in favor of this smoking Ban, i do not smoke never have never will.

I just voted on the smoking poll on the bbc website and it says 79% are for the total ban. I know smokers that are for this ban, what does that say?

Its days like this that restores a little bit of faith in the government and public.

It really makes me happy when i think about the younger generation that will grow up never being exposed to smokers

edit: The "Roll on summer 2007" refrence is when the ban comes into effect.

Edited by MAKO at 01:55 GMT, 15th Feb 2006

<< Comment #19 @ 02:58 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #13

pathetic. please kill yourself. people like you disgust me.

<< Comment #40 @ 14:47 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #19

Edited by h3i at 14:24 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #43 @ 14:55 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #40

yes, and then you've proved my point, haven't you? your selfish interests supercede all else, and in the eyes of the government, this temporary victory of independence is acceptable, as it fits their agenda.
well played, sir.

<< Comment #47 @ 15:01 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

zealot - Reply to #43

If wanting to smoke in front of xxx people isn't about the most selfish thing ever I wouldn't know what is...

<< Comment #48 @ 15:02 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #47

<< Comment #93 @ 05:26 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

fl3a - Reply to #48

you really do refuse to understand eh?

<< Comment #94 @ 05:29 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #93

what.

<< Comment #57 @ 16:01 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Lukas - Reply to #43

Im not causing discomfort by not smoking. They can cause discomfort by smoking. Thats a simple fact.
And most of the time I really dont mind ppl smoking, but there are exceptions I can think of and not just for me personally.

And Americans shouldnt talk about things 'fitting the agenda' ;)

Edited by Lukas at 16:03 GMT, 15th Feb 2006

<< Comment #63 @ 17:27 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #43

It's selfish to wish to remain healthy? That someone else choses to become adicited makes ME selfish?

<< Comment #68 @ 17:36 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #63

<< Comment #70 @ 17:45 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #68

Yea.

<< Comment #73 @ 18:32 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

MAKO - Reply to #19

Why dont you explain instead of insulting me

<< Comment #78 @ 21:28 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

smurkey - Reply to #13

"It really makes me happy when i think about the younger generation that will grow up never being exposed to smokers"

That's bare fucking stupidity. If anything the new law means that generations to come will likely be exposed to smoke more, because instead of their dad going down the pub for a smoke after a hard day's graft he'll have to sit at home, in his cigarette stained armchair, smoking merrily away whilst little Timmy is sitting there in the corner of the living room playing with his toys and slowly but surely inhaling the passive smoke which circulates the room.

Edited by smurkey at 21:28 GMT, 15th Feb 2006

<< Comment #126 @ 19:16 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

MAKO - Reply to #78

"If anything the new law means that generations to come will likely be exposed to smoke more"

So at the moment you think smokers only smoke at the pub and not at home in front of their kids? dont be rediculous..

go and do some research on smoking habits

<< Comment #127 @ 19:37 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

smurkey - Reply to #126

erm, obviously they smoke at home. What I am saying is that now that the pubs and bars and public places are banning it then there is bound to be more smoke at home, being breathed in by lil Timmmmeh.

<< Comment #128 @ 19:47 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

temporary - Reply to #127

Fine by me, I'd rather he kill his kid then me.

<< Comment #130 @ 20:09 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

MAKO - Reply to #127

sure its possible he may never leave his house again because he can't smoke in public and poor timy may not live old enough to have kids of his own OR he could stop being so fucking selfish and stop smoking and live happily ever after with timy!

I imagine the smoking death toll would still be less if people are confined to smoking in their homes with 3or4 people as apoosed to 100's in the pubs clubs etc.

Our government wont fuck with smoking in the home directly because they know that even the non smokers like my self wouldnt stand for that kind of control or decision making in your own private domain no matter how bad smoking is, and i dont care what people get upto in private but i dont want to have to put up with it in public!

The government is quite happy to keep us all tucked up happily at home out of harms way doing what ever we want, its a method of control..

i'd also guess that they will never actually make smoking totaly illiegal as it would just go on the black market and possibly increase crime smugling etc

<< Comment #144 @ 19:08 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Shrike - Reply to #13

What I would love to see is the government taking the millions they make form taxing cigarettes and spending it on something worthwhile ..but then again the hypocritical bastards will prolly just spunk it all on some stupid economic black hole created by their own incompetence ...

<< Comment #15 @ 02:55 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

way2ez4gtv

from what song ? :)

<< Comment #32 @ 12:51 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Raist

all this debate about smoking pff
matter of choice, and the stories i quickly read here about second hand smoking were not that convincing too(aside from that it is harmful of course) So unless someone smokes right next to you
let them be, will you?

Edited by snb-Raistlin at 12:51 GMT, 15th Feb 2006

<< Comment #37 @ 13:41 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Lukas - Reply to #32

About 2 years ago smoking was banned in trains here in Holland. Which was fantastic, because in half of the train (approx) it was allowed to smoke, and in the other half it wasnt. So during rush hour, you we're forced to sit in the smoking area (or stand) and that was just fucking disgusting.
It's not only the moment you're there, the smell travels with you the rest of the day.

And btw...smoking being harmful is convincing enough for me =]

Edited by Lukas at 13:42 GMT, 15th Feb 2006

<< Comment #41 @ 14:47 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Raist - Reply to #37

i meant that for smokers themselves. In situations like you explained I can easily agree that the rule does not make sense. I just can't stand the people who want to get it banned because they think they have the right to decide for others

<< Comment #42 @ 14:54 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #41

Edited by h3i at 14:20 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #45 @ 14:59 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #42

so again, you guys admit that your government make decisions for you. oh, society breeds the desire to smoke, which was instilled in them by the corporations, originally. so obviously we must get eradicate smoking.. give it that good ol' heroin stigma.. OH WAIT, the civil rights people also argue against the banning of drugs, don't they? you guys probably do in your spare time. what's the difference? you never mentioned anything of second-hand smoke, and if you had, then I can hardly see your point. it isn't a government's job to baby sit its people. and if you don't want it on trains, then don't use that train; vote with your wallet, to the people who matter, not the government.
this idiocy is just becoming too much for me. I mean I could write a 10 page long thesis here explaining how pathetic the logic in this thread is and probably convince you all, but it's not worth my effort to try on here. this site is just too stupid for me.

<< Comment #51 @ 15:34 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Lukas - Reply to #45

Your penis must be extremely small :(

<< Comment #58 @ 16:05 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

hnns - Reply to #45

i don't think you can necessarily convince people to become anarchists.

Anyway the prosecution against smokers is becoming more and more violent and hypocritical, seeing as smoking is legal. If I were a smoker i'd be even more pissed off. Most likely this law will become reality in almost all western countries within ten years.
For the record, second hand smoking is about as much truth as global warming.

Edited by hnns at 16:06 GMT, 15th Feb 2006

<< Comment #61 @ 16:57 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #45

Edited by h3i at 14:21 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #69 @ 17:38 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #61

say what?

<< Comment #98 @ 08:27 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #69

Edited by h3i at 14:21 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #100 @ 09:10 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #98

you don't have any sort of point. you're rambling incoherently.

<< Comment #102 @ 09:18 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #100

Edited by h3i at 14:21 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #104 @ 10:18 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #102

your mind is incredibly weak and small, but even if I attempt to lend credence to whatever it is you're trying to say, then I'd please desire an explanation as to what this has to do at all with government telling its people what to do.

<< Comment #106 @ 10:38 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Lukas - Reply to #104

People admitting the government is telling people what to do gets your micropenis hard or something?
And what he is trying to tell you is that not only the government is telling people what to do, but many others are too (in a somewhat different way). But you allready knew that, I'm sure.

Edited by Lukas at 10:39 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #108 @ 11:33 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #106

Edited by h3i at 14:21 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #107 @ 11:26 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #104

Edited by h3i at 14:21 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #109 @ 12:11 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #107

what the holy hell are you talking about. seriously, stick to 'debating' in kindergartens.

<< Comment #114 @ 14:10 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl

you are honestly one of the stupidest pseudointellectuals on this site.
gratz!

<< Comment #115 @ 14:26 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #109

To you, grow up. I know you only use esr as mild comic relief from whatever it is that you let plague you so severly in some other part of your life, but without trying to cause offence, u cant keep your antics away from me so i will keep myself away from you.

<< Comment #116 @ 14:38 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #115

you grow up and learn how to debate, instead of throwing around mindless banter.

<< Comment #117 @ 15:45 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #116

<< Comment #79 @ 22:10 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Omen- - Reply to #45

so again, you guys admit that your government make decisions for you.

Try looking up the definition of a government some time. Whats the point in electing a government which doesnt make decisions for you or your country?

Im not going to argue over the smoking ban because my views on it are purely selfish. I dont smoke, so i am happy with the ban.

<< Comment #91 @ 03:12 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #79

Try looking up the definition of a government some time. Whats the point in electing a government which doesnt make decisions for you or your country?

hahahahahah. nice try. do I even need to reply to this trash? seriously. how stupid do you have to be to not notice the way he stuck in "the government is supposed to make decisions for your country.. and on for you too."
hahahaha. go away.

<< Comment #99 @ 08:49 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Omen- - Reply to #91

Not trying to argue with anyone here mate. Get over yourself.

<< Comment #101 @ 09:12 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #99

what.

<< Comment #110 @ 12:53 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

fl3a - Reply to #101

yet another great reply that shows just how superior you are to us all. well done my friend

<< Comment #46 @ 15:00 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #42

and as far as whether or not putting fags in your mouth is voluntary.. I really don't want to get into another discussion about the genetic implications of homosexuality.

<< Comment #52 @ 15:43 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Lukas - Reply to #42

I think the stigma is going to other drugs being accepted instead of smoking not being accepted in the years to come. Well...at least softdrugs are.

<< Comment #56 @ 15:59 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Raist - Reply to #52

that might happen in the end because of extremist politics
On the other hand, if weed gets legalized instead I would so laugh at the irony heh

<< Comment #55 @ 15:56 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Raist - Reply to #42

so you are saying a 16 year old teenager is forced to smoke regardless if he feels like it or not. With this logic the same would happen if the friends in question were crack heads

Also, socially unexceptable and legislature are two different things, so I find it funny that you associate em.

over all, I know you mentioned that heroin is a more extreme drug but using this comparison is just plain wrong

<< Comment #97 @ 08:24 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #55

Edited by h3i at 14:21 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #77 @ 20:37 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #42

The sooner that idiot gets cancer and dies the better cos it's one less idiot in the world. If his friends all said they were gay and offered him a good bumming he wouldn't accept so your logic is flawed beyond belief. If you think cigarrettes addict after one try you live in a dream world where one beer makes it impossible to drive and a puff of marijuana leads to shooting heroin a week later. Wake up and get a grip on reality buddy. Don't watch a few reactionary television pieces then think you're in a position to preach, try looking at scientific research from both sides of an arguement.

People like you hold back the whole race from evolution since you want to waste all our time and resources on types of people we need to get rid of asap.

<< Comment #96 @ 08:21 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #77

Edited by h3i at 14:21 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #112 @ 13:27 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Raist - Reply to #96

the way you speak about this whole thing makes no sense, you talk as if you are superior alone because you "chose" to give 5 minutes to reply.
This attitude alone guarentees that none of your points will be taken seriously. Now, you can choose again to make a post in that superior tone of yours but i think that it won't matter anymore, or you can say something like "I don't give a fuck about you" just like you don't give a fuck if your family dies(seriously, why say that) so your argument is even more doomed.

<< Comment #113 @ 13:53 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #112

To you, i apologise if i seemed superiour, some of my kdawg based rage and the annoyance of having thorin misunderstand my comment and consider me one of the shallow people i have worked hard not to become made me more reactionary than i should be.

Edited by h3i at 14:23 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #120 @ 17:11 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

sonic ' - Reply to #113

might want to edit that again

<< Comment #123 @ 18:31 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #120

No, im bored now.

<< Comment #132 @ 00:40 UTC, 17 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Thorin - Reply to #113

I'm not saying you are shallow, I'm saying you're approaching it from the wrong angle completely. It's like the mothers against drunk driving group who put 'drunk goggles' on kids which completely destroy your ability to walk in a straight line etc then tell them "this is what it's like after just two beers". The cause they are fighting for might be a perfectly valid one but the methods they employ are disingenuous and unethical. Banning something isn't a solution to stopping addiction, neither is villanizing situations like being offered one as a teenager.

<< Comment #133 @ 08:31 UTC, 17 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #132

Christ, i didnt say SAVE THE CHILDRENXZ!Z!!
I was pointing out that once you become addicted and mentally accepting of a situation like being a smoker your freedom of choice is radically altered.
I couldnt give a flying fuck if kids smoke, aslong as they dont smoke around me, ie in clubs and bars, im FINE with it. I just dont want to have to wash my clothes, shower two times and feel like i have sandpaper in my throat every time i go to play pool.
I agree with you, the sooner people smoke and kill themselves the better, population crisis etc.

<< Comment #81 @ 23:11 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Aaron - Reply to #42

urgh I did :D

<< Comment #95 @ 08:13 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #81

Edited by h3i at 14:22 GMT, 16th Feb 2006

<< Comment #49 @ 15:04 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl

MOST RECENT FROM THE UK
LATE BREAKING NEWSS
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/15/131222

<< Comment #80 @ 22:43 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Whitey - Reply to #49

oh noes some guys in suits might be able to see whats on my hard drive!

<< Comment #92 @ 03:13 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #80

phew!

<< Comment #67 @ 17:36 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl

to anyone who is replying in this thread: don't try to argue. you're too stupid. wow.

<< Comment #71 @ 17:45 UTC, 15 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

h3i - Reply to #67

By daryl - Reply to #64

<< Comment #111 @ 12:55 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

sonic '

cute

<< Comment #121 @ 17:28 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

oda

What a stupid thread. It's nice to see daryl once again wasting his potential on mere mortals. Seriously though, what's up with that? Why argue if you think you are always right? Oh wait, you are trying to help people further themselves... of course ;]

<< Comment #122 @ 17:45 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #121

I don't argue, if you're referring to me. I guess that's the whole idea.

<< Comment #124 @ 18:38 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

oda - Reply to #122

I'd really like to know why you continue to argue or converse with people that you consider idiots.

<< Comment #125 @ 18:42 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #124

again, I don't argue.

<< Comment #129 @ 19:56 UTC, 16 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

oda - Reply to #125

Maybe it's just to entertain yourself. God knows that's why I do it.

<< Comment #134 @ 09:27 UTC, 17 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

imbaczek - Reply to #122

Other people consider arguing what you think is announcing the one truth to the world. Do humanity a favour and stfu.

<< Comment #135 @ 09:29 UTC, 17 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

daryl - Reply to #134

you're polish

<< Comment #136 @ 12:52 UTC, 17 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

fl3a - Reply to #135

theres a chance he isnt, just like theres a chance you are a normal person

<< Comment #138 @ 14:21 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Rhys

stfu yank.

<< Comment #137 @ 14:21 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

Rhys

stfu yank.

<< Comment #141 @ 15:16 UTC, 18 February 2006 >>

(Link, Reply)

gastfreund

Everybody who goes into a pub or bar or whatsoever fucking knows people smoke a lot there, and do they care or does it stop them from going there? No, it doesnt (obviously). It reminds me to those people who build a house beside a 6 track highway and then take the owners of the highway to court because they feel molested by the noise.

So instead of applaudiing to some purely activistic law that does nothing but imposing ones freedom those who mind could just visit bars which dont allow smoking at all, but obviously those bars dont exist. Why dont they exist? Right, because nobody cares at all. What is this law good for then? Right, let your politicians look good and cut down your rights and freedom. What is the best on this story? Yes right, most people still like the idea that the gouvernment takes care about things they could easily handle on their own.

To underline it: This is just a political joke. If 75% of the people would think pupils in school should be allowed to smoke crack during their pauses any gouvernment would instantly underline the right of young people to get high on crack. Thats just the way politic is done.

Reply to:
[Reset] Format:

Formatting:

Content:

Are you a bot?

Or if you already have an account:

Username:

Password:

Read the Posting Guidelines

Non-HTML tags: [b]bold[/b], [i]italics[/i], [u]underlined[/u]
[small]small[/small], [q]quoted[/q], [s]~~strikethrough~~[/s]
[url=www.url.com]link[/url] or type www.url.com
[flag=country] (list), [avatar=name] (list)
[map=mapname gamename] (list)

Conceived and created by Sujoy Roy (Legal Notices)
RSS Feed Information, Link Buttons and Banners