Be Excellent To Each Other

Depends on the people involved though, doesn't it? I've met perfectly lovely drunken people and those on Class As who I'd gladly have smashed in the face with an axe.

The worst violence I've ever seen wasn't anything to do with drunks and everything to do with drugs. That said it probably happened because drugs are illegal. Usually though I'd have to agree that a club full of drunks is more likely to end in trouble.

Same here. However the violence surrounding drugs tend to be a result of the trade, rather than overindulgence by the end user.

How many stoned people have ever started a fight, rather than just starting a packet of Cheetos?

Case closed, m'lud.

I'm making a sweeping generalisation, darling. You don't count. *pinches cheek* +

What I mean is, a proper dance club full of pillheads has such a better atmosphere than a normal club full of drunken men molesting women and punching other blokes.

+ face

I dunno... I've sat in rooms with people on pills (and other drugs) and they're all really dull

This has nothing to do with your friends being witless dullards, Curiosity.

FTFY

All people who make sweeping generalisaitons are cunts, though.

Lawyers are benders.

Also, I dunno if this has anything to do with my sweeping generalisations in regards to the middle-class buying wine, but I *really hope it is* because the preciousness would be hilarious. If not, can we make it that anyway please?

That was my joke.

If you have to explain it, it's not funny.

That's why no one's explained your face yet, then.

No, you're a lemon.

*explodes*

God, like, I was so obviously setting that joke up, I can't believe you didn't realise. Oh my god I'm totally embarassed for you. Oh my god, oh my god!

Er, no. It was me throwing one of Myp's jokes to me back at him.

Sorry. I'm just not sufficiently bovvered by anything you've said to get precious about it - in any event I've added a joke tag to all of it.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHA. You so funny.

Well good then. I wouldn't want you to, in your rage, knock a weaved bowl of potpourri all over the coffee table, spilling your wine all over your best Dido albums and Banksy books...

You set 'em up, I knock 'em down; I thought that's how we rolled?

No way man, I'm in this for solo victory. I'd scramble over your corpses to get a laugh. This is World of CUS, bitch.

Deary dear. What I'm not saying is when I go out drinking with friends I find it boring, not at all. I've had some awesome nights out on booze.

I was talking about atmospheres in clubs (note: not pubs).

Do I need to borrow Mr Chris's 'Joke Alert' tag?

You either have to borrow his Joke Alert tag, or just get a few people together and all go 'God! That Myoptika, what a witless dullard eh? Witless Dullard to the max! Dull, witless Myoptika!' enough times until people start to assume that's all there is to him. If you're cheery and funny when you do it, you'll get a special bonus multiplier that steals his life force whilst adding it to your own.

The Joke Alert tag is easier.

But I do like the idea of stealing his life force...

You steal a bit of it every time you are near me.

You said that was 'love juice'!

Sorry, it's my weird dialect.

Fucking hell, don't get me started on that witless cunt Banksy, the cracker joke purveyor of the art world. GRRRR. RAGE.

Oi, CUS! Intelligent conversation about how awful Banksy is was wanted. Can you help?

No, sorry. But I can incoherently and needlessly insult someone completely at random, if that will help instead?

It's not Banksy is it?

Well, it would be super awesome if you could needlessly* and incoherently insult Gordon Brown at one of his press conferences - that would be absolutely first class television, and I can picture his stupid face in reaction to it. Especially that thing he does with his mouth between thoughts.

But no, no thoughts on Banksy? Fine. I was hoping to engage in a stimulating conversation, like, as I'd been informed those had been missing from the board, and I don't have a 360 so I'm not too interested in the BezzieMatesTM threads.

*Not actually needlessly

Oh, well, I mean, I tried starting some engaging conversations on Cannabis, on the alarmingly Orwellian actions of Labour in the last week in regards to Cannabis; also, elsewhere, on my alarm at finding the tone of this nation in regards to smokers being increasingly like anti-semites in early 20th century Germany and Hungary, even going so far as to (hopefully unconsciously) mimic certain aspects of Nazi propaganda, even down to the choice of words. I didn't get as far as mentioning the anti-semitism specifically however, as people were already basically raising their voices and going 'hahah CUS smells!' in a loud manner, like the fine gentlefolk they are. I also started some other 'serious' topics, but as you say, there seems to be no interest in having serious conversation here. Well, other than people moaning about it at me, and then having a big fit later, when I dared to try. I don't know, maybe they wanted "ARE GAMES GETTING TOO EASY??" or "WILL SONY WIN?" or something equally 'brilliant'.

But nobody even replied, or they just suggested I shut my bit fat wordy cake hole for being 'weird' (unfortunately over-looking the obvious fact that one can't conduct a 'blind test' by saying 'THIS IS ABOUT PREJUDICE BUT SSSSSSSHHH' first.

So alas, whilst I am indeed grateful and appreciative that you have asked to have a decent conversation (and not, for example, ONLY spout shite about nothing much, as so many of these threads have seen), I'm afraid that you are 24 hours too late, sir.

But Banksy, really IS a twat. I just can't think of much to say that hasn't been said already, far better, in the course of Nathan Barley.

Well, given that smokers are smelly inconsiderate so and sos who are happy to inflict injury on those within several metres of them in the course of their failing to exercise any willpower, I'd say that they would be quite deserving of some Nazi-style bashing. Comparing them to the Jews in WW2 is (a) comparing apples and oranges and (b) a bit silly and over the top. The Jews did nothing to harm anyone else, and were persecuted for no reason other than their rather inoffensive religion and the view that they happened to have cornered to much of the money lending market. The hard-working bastards.

Smokers, on the other hand, deliberately or recklessly inflict damage to other people's lungs. Which is, y'know, a bit off.

You'll be entirely aware that any attempt to suggest that passive smoking isn't a risk will be met with entirely deserved scorn, so I'm sure you're not about to take that tack in response.



But, as a smoker, you *do* smell, though... ?

My opinion differs. Specifically, you have obvious examples like Herschel Grynszpan, who was obviously used as a scapegoat - but still, obviously he did do something to harm others. The example of him was used as a nice bit of propaganda.

Now. Given that reality is subjective and we are ultimately reliant on stimuli, information for our understanding of Truth, it therefore can take mere half-truths to establish a successful illusion. Herschel was used as scapegoat for the events of Kristallnacht, and that itself, by the simple fact of it having taken place, became 'proof'. This is part of the hideous retroactive nature of history - because there was an uprising, it must have been warranted, right?

Well, no, obviously not. And yet the uprising took place, after a long period of nastiness towards the Jews. That it took place, was reason for it to take place. The people were ready. They had been primed, carefully manipulated by an opportunistic government. It only takes newspapers, posters, and a couple of choice bits of apocrypha, to start a revolution.


What an absolute pack of lies. I've had 5 fags today, and not ONCE have I damaged anyone else's lungs, whether deliberately or recklessly. You have left a clause from your statement, sir. And with that clause, I shall sneak in and play merry hell with your argument.


Indeed. When I bring up car fumes, given that I am smoking pedestrian, is that allowed or are we using Campbellian Logic?


To be honest, I'm a masturbator first, smoker second. You WISH I smelled of smoke.

I'll get back to all this later when I'm home but suffice it to say that the negative portrayal of smokers is in relation to passive smoking, rather than smoking itself. No-one sane has suggested that smokers should be banned from smoking in their own homes, for example, (provided there are no kiddies for whom we must be careful to think of, of course).

Most smokers did, prior to the public smoking ban, smoke in pubs, say, and thereby inflicted damage on others. For myself, now that that's been banned, I'm pretty much happy. I get annoyed at getting a gobful of smoke in the street when out running, as when your lungs are that open it's horrid, but it's so diffuse outside that it's hard to argue that it constitutes an at all material health risk. I would make it illegal to smoke oif you're prgnant or to smoke in the house if you have kids or a pregnant woman in the house with you.

As for cars, I agree - they're bad. But that's not a reason for not banning smoking in public buildings. There's lots of bad things in the world, and the absence of action on one is not a reason for refusing action on others.

I'm an ex-smoker, for the purposes of full disclosure.

Okay. Why are we discussing whether or not there should be a Smoking Ban, by the way? I am confused. I thought it had been agreed that we'd all run out of opinions and stuff. I am not being pissy.

I don't think that there should be a ban on in-business smoking, myself, and I could not give a fuck if it makes non-smokers cry and whimper that it makes them smell bad. Go back 2 hundred years (less, even) and they'd have had their own shit still clinging to their thighs each day (from the insanitary conditions, lack of food hygeine, general lack of caring), the women would have been still routinely showing their tits off in alehouses*, and so on. It's quite a recent change, this idea that we all need to be wearing soft jumpers, use only organic shampoo, and ensure that our filthy, stinking bodies are rituallistically purged of all traces of experience or adventure.


Would you make it illegal to drive your gas-guzzler past a pregnant woman? Also, pregnant women should not be allowed to have a mobile phone on their stomach, to stop the baby getting a tumor from it.


You're right. We should make sure that every single last cigarette has been tagged and ID chipped, so we know its location and behaviour at all times. We can sort out this whole 'car fumes' business later. Why not? I mean, it's not like one of these issues is a pressing concern across the world, and the other just makes your jeans smell like a chav. I disagree with anyone who says that this is a ridiculous set of affairs and that carbon emissions are more serious - as if they ever could be! - than whether or not a 14 year old must squeak 'I AM 18' or 'I AM 16', when they go to buy fags.

That was sarcasm in that last paragraph, by the way.

* No change there then.

Are you serious? As it's currently legal to kill unborn babies at an age where they have a chance of survival, to ban someone from doing something with a small chance of harm is fucking ridiculous.



Er, yes it is, quite frankly. There's no way you can argue that one unnecessary pollutant is acceptable, and another isn't. Passive smoking does a lot less damage than vehicle pollution, both to health and to the enviroment.

Also, the smoking ban in pubs makes pubs less pleasant for most people, unless you really love the smell of stale beer, stale sweat, and stale flatulence. It also means I'm spending most of the night outside with friends who still smoke, so getting all the vehicle pollution as well as passive smoking.

For full disclosure, I'm an ex-smoker as well, and probably won't start again. However, I maintain the following statements are factually correct*
1) Smoking is cool.
2) Women smoking is hot.
3) Tobacco smells nice, both fresh and smoked.

*By factually correct, I mean personal opinion, obv, but I think I'd borrowed Davydd Grimm's vitriol boiler for a second...

I agree with SteONorDar largely. Though, the smell of tobacco has never done anything for me in any form.

Because this is something that I've not discussed on this forum, here are some opinions of mine that are much more fun to vaguely collate as talking points, than individually rant about:

In my opinion the ban on 'indoor smoking', as it were, will have a serious detrimental health upon the people of this country, specifically in regards to the young and old. It's alll just a hideous tourism scam, specifically with Americans in mind, and a good example of why this country will unfortunately always have a royal family. It will also negatively impact heavily upon obesity, and will negatively affect with environmental issues (but then, you all already know that).

DISCUSS! I will be back with the Answer Paper later.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the enviromental issues with every pub having massive heaters outdoors. And the bar staff have to come outside to get glasses, so still get passive smoking. So nothing's changed.

Where I live, there's a pub that banned smoking entirely several years ago, and has gone from strength to strength by offering quality food, ale, and live music, in surroundings that some people enjoy. This, folks, is CHOICE, and the way things should be.

But to go out, drink 8 pints of lager, eat a kebab, and then complain that someone else has made it unhealthy for you by smoking nearby is fucking ridiculous.

Honestly, it's almost enough to make me start again...

A very slim chance of survival which is likely to result in the kid having hideous disabilities, but that's not the point. It's illegal to punch pregnant women in the stomach, and smoking's qualitatively in the same ball park - a woman smoking whilst pregnant has a dangerous risk of harming the baby, and to suggest living with a smoking partner in a smokey house wouldn't have a similar risk is wrong-headed in the extreme.


I didn't say one was acceptable and the other wasn't. I said the exact opposite. But because certain things are shit, but are uneconomic to do anything about, doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T do something about an issue which is cheap for the government to deal with. To suggest we should do neither in some petulant fit of "they can still do their bad thing and we can't do ours" pique is gobsmackingly silly. Looking at you, FOREST.



You go to shit pubs then.



Easy answer there - your mates can quit smoking and you can all stay inside and avoid both lots of toxins. At the bottom of it, it's a stupid fucking habit, does nothing positive except relieve your cravings for it, and is incredibly bad for you.


All this is technically true, except (3), which is entirely untrue except in relation to cigar or pipe smoke.


Which, if smokers weren't such wusses, they wouldn't need. BUY A JUMPER.



See, that's just daft. To suggest the couple-of-times-a-night exposure to significantly more diffuse smoke in an open space whilst collecting glasses is anywhere near as dangerous as being in a basically sealed room with a load of smokers for 6 hours every night is frighteningly silly.

I disagree with the "women who smoke are hot" bit. A couple of times I've kissed someone shortly after they've smoked a cigarette, and that must be the 2nd worst taste I've ever experienced (shortly behind my own vomit)

Malc

"Women who smoke are hot, as long as they have DoubleMint"?

I'd say that I have never in person met anyone who agrees with that sentiment. I have NEVER been in a bar where someone has complained of the smell since the smoking ban. I HAVE been in bars with, I would say, in excess of fifty ppeople who have commented on how much nicer bars smell these days.



That's a woeful argument, CUS. Deduct yourself ten CUS points.

Let's go back to the good ol' days when we all died young from diseases! Woohoo!

"If we can't advance everything all at once, we should advance nothing!"

An excellent rallying cry for the masses, there.

Yes, thank goodness nobody ever dies young now anymore. I for one welcome our glorious modern life of 9-5 cubicle commuter hell.

That was sarcasm.

I don't consider borderline facist denial of choice to be an advance personally.



Back when everyone smoked, were most babies disabled? No. Some, a small amount were. This is, frankly, scaremongering. I've no doubt it would be terrible to find out you had harmed your child in this way, but that doesn't equate to it being a likelihood. It's in no way similar to a punch in the stomach.

Sigh. Yes, preventing people from having the choice to damage other people's health is dead fascist, yes.

And with that, I think we needn't bother discussing this any further, eh?

So,do you want to discuss cannabis or the staggeringly brazen attitudes of the government in relation to cannabis?

I only ask 'cos like, this isn't the smoking discussion thread. I think we have one already, but quickly remembered that nobody ever agrees anyway.

I would ban smoking in places near other people who don't want to smoke (I hate walking past someone and getting a gob full of smoke). I would make "zones" where people who want to smoke can do so in peace. I would allow some (but to be kept to a minimum, so the vast majority would still be smoke free) pubs/clubs/restaurants to allow smoking, but force them to invest in some hi tech equipment to make sure the air is kept as clean as possible.

I would allow people to do the same with (currently) illegal drugs too. There are so many benefits to legalising drugs, the only reason they are not, is because it comes with a stigma that MPs don't want to be associated with for fear of losing votes in "middle England".

As for car fumes, I would ban petrol/diesel cars in town/city centers. I would use the increased revenue from drugs taxes to fund an increase in public transport. With fewer cars on the roads, the buses/trams would be able to go more places without problems. Emergency services would be able to get through quickly, Delivery vans/trucks would be allowed to make deliveries between 01:00 and 05:00 or something. Oh, and I would give people a tax rebate based on the amount of public transport they use. (ie they can pay their bus fare before they get taxed) as well as expanding the cycleforwork scheme.

Yeah, that works.

Malc