Things Noticeable this week

[vannax]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

I'm torn on this too.

While i don't like forbidding everything, i know too well how it is to grow up with a smoking parent, it sucks: i was sick a lot, had a heavy smoker's cough at age 9 (i sounded like a dog barking), was sick in cars full of smoke, and when my father stopped smoking i was almost never sick anymore, plus my coughing got a lot better, though my lungs won't ever be prime material).
My father died of lung cancer by the way (though that might have been from asbestos, i'll never know for sure).

Whenever i see a young mother with baby and cigarette, i get disgusted by the sight and feel really sorry for the little kid, as i know what it will be facing.

I grew up with both parents smoking, rarely got sick, and never suffered from a smokers cough until about 10 years after I started smoking at 17.
The role of the government is not to protect people from themselves.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by vannax

I grew up with both parents smoking, rarely got sick, and never suffered from a smokers cough until about 10 years after I started smoking at 17.
The role of the government is not to protect people from themselves.

That's exactly the part i'm torn on, people can smoke until they turn green for all i care, but usually others are involved that don't have a saying in the matter (i mean children).

So the thing is, should the government (who even takes tax income on tobacco) protect people from other people? And if so, where do we draw the line?

[vannax]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

That's exactly the part i'm torn on, people can smoke until they turn green for all i care, but usually others are involved that don't have a saying in the matter (i mean children).

So the thing is, should the government (who even takes tax income on tobacco) protect people from other people? And if so, where do we draw the line?

In my opinion, we draw the line at private property.
A man can smoke in his home, outside on the street, and, if the owner doesn't mind, in a restaurant, coffee shop, bar, shop, etc.
Anything else is over-reach into peoples private lives.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vannax

Oh look, the Muslim woman kicked out of the Trump rally is an activist and apologist for terror:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...srael-radical/


Woman of the year, indeed.

It might be true but anything on breitbart needs independent corroberation. With the BBC the facts are nearly always true, but the lies are in the ommissions and the spin, the things they forget to tell you or the way they tell the story. Breitbart slagging off a woman who speaks against Mr Trump and his Islamophobic declarations [very akin to views widely expressed against Jewish immigration in the UK in the 1930s] is not by itself evidence of anything. I wouldn't even believe the date stamp on Breitbart without checking my own computer first.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vannax

In my opinion, we draw the line at private property.
A man can smoke in his home, outside on the street, and, if the owner doesn't mind, in a restaurant, coffee shop, bar, shop, etc.
Anything else is over-reach into peoples private lives.

I tend to differ in which spaces I consider private and which I consider public. But I concur with the basis principle, that government is out of order once it seeks to impose mere regulations on ordinary people inside their private space. Laws, such as the criminal law, are applicable in all spaces; but the regulation of smoking should extend to public spaces only. Inside your own home and inside your own car is your own space, and as long as you aren't rolling your own ciggies while driving at motorway speeds down sidestreets, or otherwise driving stupidly due to your smoking habit, government has no right to even be thinking about whether or not you can smoke inside your own car.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by TheBare

The presentation may be not to your liking but the guests and the information is credible as it is gleaned from media that even you are likely to approve as well as their own personal investigations.

Credible information? Really, you mean like this?
The US Government is poisoning the tap water to turn people gay?

Love the bit about Mohammed and Jesus fighting with light sabres in Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpiUfb7adPE

[gedly]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

It might be true but anything on breitbart needs independent corroberation. With the BBC the facts are nearly always true, but the lies are in the ommissions and the spin, the things they forget to tell you or the way they tell the story. Breitbart slagging off a woman who speaks against Mr Trump and his Islamophobic declarations [very akin to views widely expressed against Jewish immigration in the UK in the 1930s] is not by itself evidence of anything. I wouldn't even believe the date stamp on Breitbart without checking my own computer first.

Apparently the late Andrew Breitbart was Jewish and saw Rush Limbaugh as his inspiration (would you admit to that?). So it's entirely possible that Breitbart is funded by pro-Israel lobby groups. As an Irish Catholic who lived through the Northern Ireland troubles, I'm of the impression that governments are very pragmatic about terrorism i.e. they do not care what they actually do, just as long as they give them what they want. The British government and Murdoch press went to great pains to tell us what a truly evil organisation the IRA is but when it came to allegations that the INLA (Loyalists) were collaborating with the RUC and British Army, they were rather more coy.

[vannax]

Mass rape is an act of war.
I wonder how many more must be raped or killed before folk realize that a state of war exists.

[Sir Spender]

David Bowie loses his battle against cancer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35278872

big part of my youth,,,R.I.P

[Oswald]

I know is slightly old news, but I've been away.

British model Michelle Thorne is attacked by her husband.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...tacked-7102183