Be Excellent To Each Other

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

Vote Malc?

I think we did have a smoking thread CUS, but it was to discuss products rather than pros/cons rights/wrongs.

I doubt that policy would get anyone enough votes.

Malc

We should get one of us to run for government with some sensible polices though and see where it got us. Who's 'inbetween jobs' at the moment?

To be fair I think legalising all drugs is an experiment that most countries want to see other similar countries try first. Are there any countries where all drugs are legal?

Scotland.

Oh yes, Scotland is an amazing place though, it has the wisest politicians in the world and is just better than England in every conceivable way.

This is the only bit where it falls down, effectively it would mean all courier deliveries being a day later and massive increase in all delivery costs.



And isn't in any way fucked as soon as the oil runs out if they keep spending 25% more per person than England despite collecting less tax.

Unless you're talking about TV schedules, of course. Man, there's a lot of shite out there I'd like to deny the masses for their own good. /Painfully honest Stalinhat.



There are other ailments caused by smoking when pregnant to a baby other than obvious disabilities. Apparently now that mothers have taken to the warning about laying babies on their back instead of front, the majority of remaining deaths (about 80%) are from smoking.

Prematurity and complications at delivery are other factors as well.

And yeah, can't smokers just wear a cocking jumper instead of pointing at bad thing created to make them happy and say, "Ahh. But you see. There's more environmental damage that way."

So pretty much on Mr Chris's side of things here. But it did take my dad a long time to quit, due to work stress, so I'm not saying it's easy.

Men smoking in movies look damn cool. Women smoking - curiously enough I always found it a bit of a turn-off.

And isn't it way better for us all to smell nice? I mean, just because we took ages to realise how retarded it was to not bathe regularily and stuff, does it mean that we're wrong to now? EH? Is that it?

Yes, it is bad that we're so scent-obsessed. I would *much* rather have to smell the dirty, filthy smell of fags, then the overbearing *reek* of heavily applied cosmetics, perfume and deodorant each morning on the bus and train. Especially since this only alters the stink of the people wearing such heavy artillery - it doesn't remove it completely. Tobacco smoke usefully helps disguise this unadulterated horror.

Also - where is that you all live and work, that every time you walk outside, you get "a lungful of nasty smoke" or whatever? I've worked and lived in a couple of cities, a university town, and a tiny village - and not once have I ever been walking down the road, took a breath, and choked on fag smoke. Even when I didn't smoke for over a year, and was atuned to the smell, this didn't happen.

I mean, sure, I've smelled cigarettes, due to having a working nose that I have used to detect the odour of tobacco. But it can't possibly be that when people say they had "a lungful of smoke", that they just mean "Someone smoked near me, and I could smell it!!!!", because that's ridiculous, right?

Trufax here for you, to go off on this tangent. A senior member of the Scottish Executive vouchsafed to a person close to me that "under the Barnett formula we really do have more money than we know what to do with".

Make of that what you will.

Also: I understand they have a very high percentage of their population working in the public sector - I'd be intrigued to see how that continues in an independent Scotland.

Well they're ok for a while, the actual figures show that, as much as people want to deny it by bringing up meaningless surverys from the 1970s, today England DOES fund Scotland to a degree, but if you assume that all the oil revenue belongs to Scotland, it's not a very big amount.

However, thanks to said oil revenue, Scotland spends a full £2000 or so a year per person than next door north England on broadly the same income levels, without the oil revenue this simply isn't possible.

So yes, they're (probably) entitled to spend that but it's a medium term thing and what does get me irritated is smug people going on about Scotland being "Civilised" because of things they get simply because of oil wealth, England couldn't replicate those without a £2000 tax rise per person per year and nor should they. You might as well call Bahrain civilised for having 13p Mountain dew and 10p litres of fuel.

So tobacco is just your version of deodourant as well as a scented hanky? Ace - three birds one stone, eh?



If you're referring to my comment, which I assume you are, then you didn't read it properly. I was referring to getting a gobful of it whilst running. Running along behind someone who's smoking, or past a group of office workers outside their offices having a fag (which is very common around the harbour area in Bristol, especially in this weather, as lots of local workers find it a nice place to walk or sit whilst having a fag), and breathing in a fair whack of smoke in the process is retchingly unpleasant. This is because your lungs and all the little bobbly lungy bits inside it are completely open as far as they'll go, and so having toxic fumes of any kind getting sucked in whilst your lungs are in that state is deeply unpleasant, if thankfully transient. But I'm guessing you're not likely to have experienced that particular situation, otherwise you wouldn't be querying it.

Hmm, it's a close call between the two smellwise, I admit. But what I mean is the new age of simply showering, bathing and stuff and not applying heavy ammounts of perfume and deodorants etc. Ironically, back in those good old times of yore, you would have found extra-perfumed gents owing to the general reek of unwash. But I think you're radically overstating the smell of perfume and deoderant in pubs and bars. You're making it sound like Boots. It probably just needs a short while for people to scale down their application in the light of not having to fight against the baccy smell.

Obviously in bars filled with twats like Revolution for example, they'll still blitheringly apply half a can of lynx to themselves etc. But we don't go in places like that, thank Christ, for we have taste.

....What? No, I mean - if I'm on a cramped Virgin Pendolino service to London Euston, first thing in the morning (for example), I'd much rather - even when I was a non-smoker - be able to smell cigarette smoke than the chemical death that instead awaits me. Then again, I may be biased as most 'spray ons' set me off sneezing like pollen does. Even without that, they smell nasty and overpowering. But, y'know, it smells vaguely like a flower, so it's okay!


No sir, I was referring to the many times, past and present, that people have spoken of having lungfuls of smoke because they they were, walking along when suddenly someone runs up/pushes them out the way, and breathes smoke into their face with all their might. Due to the inconsiderate nature of smokers, and the selfish attitudes they exhibit due to their disgusting habit. Not specifically in relation to you.


This implies that not only is the smoker running, but that they're beating you.


I see. Have you considered not going for a run around the harbour area in Bristol? It's certainly the easier of the two options - the other being 'Nobody is allowed to smoke in the harbour area in Bristol in case Mr. Chris goes running there'.


Nope. I have considered taking up jogging except I can't see the point.

I had really bad asthma as a kid, these days the ONLY thing that sets it off is spray deodorant. Back in late Secondry school someone spray one all round a classroom and I actually had to leave.

I'd rather neither, given that I worked at a cosmetics company and had to put up with that shit all day in the office. However:

a lightly fragranced woman >>>> sweaty bloke smell (do venture into a gym changing room at least once, it's quite an experience) >>>> fags



HAHAHAHAHA. Indeed. The astute reader would of course immediately have inferred that I was running behind and then past said smoker who was walking in the direction I was running, but I see what you did there.



It's also quite common everywhere else I've been running anywhere near the centre of Bristol (which is where I'm based during the day), but there we are. You buggers are everywhere.

I, as you could of course tell by having actually read my posts, hadn't actually suggested that people should be banned from doing so though, had I? I had in fact specifically mentioned both in this thread and the last smoking one that I didn't think smoking should be banned outside. I was merely commenting on one of the myriad ways in which your apparently entirely innocuous and inoffensive habit is unpleasant (as well as unhealthy) for those people (if any) in your vicinity.



Health and fitness? Each to their own, mind. As I've mentioned before, I only do it to ensure I can eat and drink like I have an alcoholic tapeworm and not suffer the weighty consequences. Which, to a vain person, is a noble cause.

Mr. Chris, there's a world of difference between a "lightly fragranced woman" and the reality of public transport. "A heavily sprayed lady in middle-management who is going through 'the change', or has some other reason for stinking of sweat AND chemical death at 7.30 until 9.00".


No fooling YOU with these 'jokes' of mine!


Who - inconsiderate smokers? I'm not one of them. Or at least, I do everything in my power to not be, short of not smoking. I refuse to be part of any "buggers"


Okay. Certainly it goes without saying that indeed, one might choose to peruse my own post, in which I don't say anything of the kind; and rather, point out that it's certainly rather more easy to ban the non-smoking jogger, than the smoker. Although, the smoker is rather easier to chhase after. M'lud.


Excuse me sir, but I resent that implication. It has been over six years now since I last publically masturbated, and I have stuck to my promise.


Yes. I like that you begin with 'Jogging is to make me healthy, I'm healthy Mr. Chris!', and end with your admitting that really, you are simply vain.

So - smoking is bad, putting on weight is bad - alcohol abuse is good?

Excellent. Shall we segue now then into why I find it so ludicrous that so many fervently anti-smoking types (no, I am not categorising you, nor anyone specifically) are so fond of murdering themselves with alcohol; especially since alcohol has been definitely and categorically proven to most certainly and assuredly result in multiple deaths, both accidental and intentional, sometimes on a quite vast scale.

However, alcohol doesn't smell, and it's a fine old tradition, so I can see why it would be so superfically horrifying. When Britain's last old-fashioned pub has, finally, been redecorated, given a nice lick of paint, maybe an attractive logo out front, I hope this still satisfies. It is perhaps ironic, that as someone who is really quite anti-drink, I find myself petitioning for our pubs to remain traditional. That they are not all converted into these hideous faux-restaurants, in which you can get any drink you like - Fosters, Carlsberg, Carling, John Smiths, Strongbow*, the list is endless - and sit in a nice quite little corner, admiring the 'authentic' decorations that been recently and newly added to this travesty of a shit-tip, whilst you tuck into your authentic, home-cooked burger, and watch the football on Sky on the big TV in the corner.

Truly, that is a glorious future for us all, and when you all stagger out afterwards to die in immense car wrecks, I hope the smell of the smoke from your burning corpse does not offend your delicate nose.



* With possibly one regional ale, from the local brewery. Except it's off.

Sigh. Yes, I was absolutely serious and drink MAHOOSIVE AMOUNTS and am MASSIVELY VAIN, rather than, say, just enjoying the fact that "eat and drink like an alcoholic tapeworm" is an amusing picture to me and that saying I go running purely because I'm vain would be funny after preaching about health benefits.

I think I shall go back to my policy of non-engagement now.

Hi! This is the CUS Automated Response Line. I'm afraid CUS can't answer right now, he's off beating puppies to death with a stick because they smiled at him. In the interim, please choose from one of the following algorithmically generated responses, which have been double-dimlied in the hope of avoiding tedious and pointless confrontation:

1) Well, if you're going to have a massive childish strop like that, then perhaps you should. Because after all, you and I are good, close friends, and I well know how much you drink, and what kind of personality you have. Certainly, that all the lawyers I've ever known have been hard-drinking egotists - as you and I have discussed before, recently - wouldn't at all affect my saying that.

2) I was kidding. I like that your argument started off as 'Health!' and then ended as '(vanity)'. I didn't know that you were kidding, but certainly for you to react with such furore to my gentle, non-chiding amusement, seems rather OTT. Indeed, the irony is that you are blowing your top because damnit, you were kidding, isn't it obvious ffs; and yet, that is precisely how I reacted upon seeing your reply (hopeful as I was of one of your thoughtful replies, continuing this discussion ) as I was speaking with seemingly the same tone and policy there as yourself.


3) Now where were you when we were invading Iraq, eh?

4) There have been alcoholics in my family, a couple of whom died as a consequence. In the case of one, I never even cottoned on until he died from liver failure. Heavy drinking is not something that is a light matter - so if someone says that they drink like a fish, in a serious conversation, with no dimlie in sight, then I take them at the word. This is my own fault, but I trust you see my perspective on this.

edit: Hi, this is CUS. My 'real' answer is a combination of all 4 possible replies, so take your pick.

*slowly and repeatedly bangs head against desk*

If my response is your idea of someone "blowing their top" I'd hate to have you get involved in a proper argument, you poor sensitive thing*.

Anyway, that's better.

So, cannabis, eh? Makes everyone mental?

Or "makes everyone emmental" depending on how much you've had to smoke.


*Ha! The ironing! As that's what you said about me! See! What! I! Did! There!

Trying to get rid of a raging hangover? That won't work. You lawyer types, tch.

No, it doesn't. See. That's the thing.

Did you read any of the posts I made about the scandalous behaviour of Gordon Brown in the last week? Honestly, it's no wonder this country is going to shit. Sneak in the most draconian of laws in the most illegal way possible using the least 'middle England' policies and subjects, that's the key.


Mr. Chris, I think it's now been well-established that the forum is a rubbish form of communication, and the last few weeks have repeatedly shown, with different players, that it is very hard to actually really know if someone is just pretending to be annoyed, or really annoyed, or pretending to be really annoyed as a demonstration that they are annoyed, or whatever. However, given the tone of your response, and complete non-reply to my points, and change of subject, it's apparent that *some* change within you has taken place, whether it's to blow your top or just to remember that this isn't This Tobacco furore. *shrug*

To be fair, which one must, the report of that committee was that there was *some* evidence of mental health problems resulting from sustained cannabis use.

Of course there's much stronger evidence of a raft of different mental and physical probelms arising from heavy drinking, but we can't ban that, no siree. Please see the third post of this very thread for my immediate repsonse to this whole thing, of course.




There wasn't that much to reply to in that last one on tobacco other than the alcohol bit, to be honest. We've about done the tobacco thing to death now - neither of us is going to change their viewpoint, and both of our views have had a good airing, so I decided it was time to take a small bt of umbrage about something that came across to me as an unwarranted and out of the blue insult (and we're both aware, of course, of the problems with forums as methods of communications, and have established now that this wasn't a reaction to the intended meaning), and move on. In the interests of keeping things (a) civil and (b) interesting.

By the way, I fucked my foot up over the weekend and have been reduced to hobbling about on crutches and necking ineffective painkillers. And I must say, Dicloflex 0, Cannabis 1 when it comes to pain relief.

If dicloflex isn't something to make your penis more bendy, then someone should be fired.

It should at least be a side effect. I haven't read the bumpf yet.

Oh, absolutely. However. It was found that in subjects with existing schizophrenic issues, prolonged and *heavy* use of cannabis (approx £1k a week... more specifically, about £1300 a week) could lead to some slight worsening in those existing symptoms.

Don't forget! The whole reason for this is because Britain's Young People Are At Risk due to The Dangers Of Drugs. We know this because they might go mental on the new foreign super-skunks. The independent report found that Britain's Young People have absolutely no hope in hell of even affording to go mental AND they'd have to existing conditions AND it would be a marginal increase. Also, that the new foreign super-skunks don't exist. Which ties in nicely with my existing theory that it's simply that police are seizing more decent product* from harassed teens. Which is A Good Thing, since it means they're not seizing shit that would actually do harm, from said harassed teens.


Indeed, it is as you say (above, and waaay back also). Also, I already strongly believe that the smoking ban is increasing alcoholism, and worsening the health of Britain's Young People. I have a whole convoluted argument packed up and ready to go.

No. I'm certain this is a matter of money. It seems terribly shallow and foolish, and yet... it really does seem that Gordon Brown is a solely fiscal-oriented mind. Not simply because of his last job. That, and/or it's an attempt to try and steal a march on the Torys before the election. The stupid, arrogant, holier-than-thou twat. "I know more than you scientists!", boomed Gordon Brown, ripping up the report and stamping his feet angrily. I wonder if that's what Dubbya kept doing when the WMDs just weren't turning up?

Oh, but sorry, that was about freedom, not drugs. Totally different thing.

* it is not true that simply because it's skunk or 'looks natural' that it's free of chemicals necessarily, natch.


You hateful git. I tell you, you'd never catch me doing such rampant hate-mongering. But anyway.

So, surely he'd want to legalise it so he could tax it to death and get loads and loads of wonga? And taxation is, after all, the preferred Labour way of getting people to stop doing things it disapproves of.

Basically, my view is -

(a) Anything that people will do which harms only them is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, MR GOVERNMENT. It is entirely up to people if they want to make themselves die from whatever.

(2) Legalise drugs. This will reduce all acquisitive crime by a staggering amount, and will result in safer, cheaper drugs.

Vote Chris!

I have stayed out of this thread by remembering the old* maxim "if a dog toboggans in a sandpit, it must expect to get sand in its vagina"

*just thought up by me.

Bitch surely. Or you could replace vagina with anus. Like I did.

Bet that was an uncomfortable operation.

Yours is the 2nd post.

I agree with Mr. Chris, except for the "legalize drugs" bit, you pinko. Legalize cannabis, yus.

Well, now I'm home I'll respond to it anyway. Attempting to impose an orthodoxy of your choice based on your own twisting of the evidence and your own prejudices (smokers smell bad...) is pretty close to facism, yes. It's not about "choosing to harm people" as you keep saying, if I came up to you and deliberately and repeatedly blew smoke at you you'd have a right to complain. It's about having the choice to do something LEGAL in a place where people CHOOSE to go, not a place they are force to go. In a hideous irony, about the only place it's legal to smoke these days is prison. Ooh, my sides, I hope they don't split...

That smoking's a choice I'd probably turn down these days is entirely irrelevant.

Basically, many pubs I like are going downhill after the smoking ban because many people, smokers and non smokers alike, are crowding outside rather than being in the pub. Also, queues for drinks are longer cos half the time the bar staff are outside collecting glasses and smoking themselves. The whole thing is less sociable and far more annoying. Frankly, had there ever been demand for non-smoking pubs, there would've been more than 2 in Nottingham before the ban came in.

To CUS - yes, overused cosmetics are far worse smelling than smoke, even than stale smoke.

To go back to the original topic, smoking cannabis should be legal in exactly the same way as smoking tobacco should be. That is, in private places, outdoors anywhere, and in pubs or clubs where the management choose to allow it.

Surely the argument is that it's for the health of the staff who work in those places. If you accept the science which says that passive smoking is dangerous (and that's another debate) then it's hard to argue against the ban.

I would honestly say that most bar staff are either there temporarily, as in not long enough to get harmed by it, or choose that life, which is not one conducive to health and long life generally. In short, quality of life >>>>> quantity of life, and for a lot of people a happy smokey friendly pub adds to the quality of life.

Completely off-topic: Ste, that's a fascinating choice of avatar there, you slave-lovin' sonovagun.

I wondered if anyone here would recognise him... It's more for the rebel side generally than actual support for slavery... And as I'm on here being a cunt and disagreeing with everybody, it seemed appropriate.

*nod* I like it. Mine is Che Guevara on WoS, for similar reasons. Although, erm, I'm not sure that your choice typifies rebellion so much as the right to annex neighbouring states/provinces/countries/colonies in the name of slavery. Is that also what you're all about?

No, the Confederate States of America ceded from the United States due to the attempt to remove the preexisting right to own slaves. Not that I'm defending that...
The United States then invaded the Confederate ones, on the grounds that the constitution does not allow secession, and the Confederate government was invalid.

I'm really more into the Dukes of Hazzard and country music than the politics, mind.

Anyone who doesn't know who he is will be a little confused right now, I'll wager.

I thought it was Benny Disraeli for a second. It's the slightly guant look, see.

It's Jefferson Davis, first and only President of the Confederate States of America. He is quite noticeably gaunt.

Oh for fuck's sake. If you're going to misrepresent my side of the argument that badly I really shouldn't bother. But I will, as I'm a masochist.

It's not about the smell, you blithering so and so. It's about the health risks. And I presume you're not arguing about the reality of the risks posed by passive smoking, as that really would put you in the nutjob category, which I know you're not.



It's legal to punch yourself in the face, but not legal to punch others. It's legal to fuck about with horrible chemistry sets, but not somewhere where you can knowingly or recklessly do damage to other people's health. Fireworks are legal, but not if you set them off in a fashion which you know could cause harm to other people or damage their property, or are reckless as to whether it could do so.

Why should smoking be any different at all?

There are many things which are legal in one instance which aren't or shouldn't be in another. So are you going to go back to cars and the "everything isn't fixed, so nothing should be" line? Because that little skit is both tedious and somewhat demeaning to all concerned.



As I said previously, you really must be unlucky enough to only have shit pubs near you then. This has comprehensively not been my experience nor the experience of my pub-going acquaintances. Things are lovely, pub-wise.



Your nose is broken. And CUS's palate generally has been shown to clearly be broken, as he dissed Fentiman's.



Absolutely agreed up to this point

I suggest we all go over to Wolves and comprehensively test CUS's pubs to see if he's a complete wrong'un on this one or not.

Though he almost certainly is a complete wrong'un. As the Cardiff pubs have been significantly lovelier and just as busy since the smoking ban which came a year (or something) before you lot in England.

See also: Edinburgh, some time ago.

Purely in the interests of fucking with your metaphor, it is if you deliberately choose to go somewhere where face-punching is accepted, like a boxing ring.

You can't punch the crowd, mate, much as Tyson may have wanted to.

Hence, knowing you to be the pedantic sort, why I said ring, not arena.

You've missed the point of the metaphor, though, Craster. It wasn't comprehensive, merely an example of something that is accepted in one use, but not in another.

But you knew that, and you get points for teh funnee

@nervouspete: I didn't say that, SteONorDar did. I have no idea about the pubs in Wolverhampton, I've hardly been in them. I live here, but I don't "live" here, as it were.


Nice words there. I think it's "Everything isn't fixed, so why don't we do so in a nice sensible order, instead of this twatty self-interest that is so hideously forced upon the nation"? And yes - forced upon. I needn't say why, you'll have read the stuff on the BBC by now.

edit: which doesn't refer specifically to cigarettes, I'm speaking still of cannabis. Personally, incidentally, I'd be happy to see tobacco criminalized in exchange.


I know that you kid but - nuts to you, baldy*. I said most assuredly that Fentiman's has a delicious taste and a very appetizing odour, but just lacks 'kick'. If it had just a teensy bit more fizz, it'd be spot on. Perhaps my palate is simply more refined than yours *lazily trims nails*


Sorry - you mean that you agree that it should be legalized, yes? I'm not going 'AHA!', 'cos I think you've said so earlier, it's just this quote that has confused me. Me, I am all in favour of cannabis being legalized, taxed, and then smoke responsibily away from pregnant women and such.

Mr. Chris, I have a question for you, you anonymous Guy On The Internet, you. Have you ever tried cannabis? Obviously I don't think for a minute that you do so with any regularity, and if you did, I'm sure that it was a passing fad, due to peer pressure, and you didn't like it etc. But all that aside - have you, just out of interest? I have no follow-up planned.

* The first step in a brilliant new scheme of mine.