Despite all the medical evidence, are you suggesting passive smoking doesn't damage the health of children?
Originally Posted by Rebirth
Despite all the medical evidence, are you suggesting passive smoking doesn't damage the health of children?
The Mail quote appears to be highlighting the mentality of the global corporations and their untamed desire for cheap labour. Our politicians represent these corporations, who actually destroy jobs. You can't even call them capitalist, because they destroy economies (national at least), and are just the result of utter greed.Then you can force the prisoners into taking away paid work from the non-prison population in the name of work ethic and work experience as part of the programme to rehabilitate the prisoners...
But of course it will all be okay as the non-prison population will be more happy to enter into a cycle of 6 month unpaid work experience. Who really needs to get paid these days anyway...
But the state will pay you money for going on this vital work experience training I hear you cry, so what are you complaining about?
Work pays, work will set you free....
Mr Daily Mail says this:-
Anyway I think you are blowing everything out of proportion expecting to be paid a certain amount of money for working, you have never had it sooo good. Do you realise what other people in other countries get paid. Far Far less that people the greedy people in this country who have got their hands out for more and more money while the "real workers" in this country have to contribute nearly all of what they earn to subsidise people who are sat on their fat arses at home drinking Special Brew and Chinese take aways every night, not to mention those people who stand around at work staring into space and getting paid for it.
Study the real history of fascism and communism they are pretty much the same thing so I guess you must be a little confused.
And how long did that take to kill them probably an hour at most. So why is it then not child abuse to have a child out in charring cross high street on a busy day?Would you also support what the Nazis did against the Jews in putting them in the back of vans and channelling the exhaust fumes in to kill them?
I'd describe smoking in a car with children in it assuming the windows were not open as irresponsible and selfish but describing it as child abuse is really quite sickening.I don't think they should ban smoking. But passive smoking is a real problem and those people that smoke in their cars whilst they have kids with them are guilty of child abuse.
What would you propose happens to any one caught smoking in a car with children in it?
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. They listen with the intent to reply.” Stephen Covey
Your example is a non sequitur and is simply clutching at straws. Transport is convenient and essential. Smoking is neither. Like asbestos, tobacco had its use, and was later found to be unintentionally toxic. So strictly controlling the the use of both substances until they can be eradicated is the sensible way forward.
PS: Sometimes a speed of 15 mph, or less, could well be appropriate. We have a 20 mph limit on at least one main road and a number of other streets N16. But I doubt anyone other than an irresponsible lunatic would insist on driving right up to that limit irrespective of the prevailing conditions.
I have studied it and there are major differences.
Anyone that accuses someone of being both a fascist and a communist is a fool.
There is a big difference between being out in the open and in confined spaces. There is also a big difference when parents smoke in their cars with children because that is deliberate.And how long did that take to kill them probably an hour at most. So why is it then not child abuse to have a child out in charring cross high street on a busy day?
Sickening? A bit over the top. Smacking a child is abuse in my view and deliberately exposing a child to carcinogens in a confined space is also abuse.I'd describe smoking in a car with children in it assuming the windows were not open as irresponsible and selfish but describing it as child abuse is really quite sickening.
Nothing. I don't believe in laws being passed that are impractical to enforce.What would you propose happens to any one caught smoking in a car with children in it?
I don't think it's disputable that cigarette smoking causes a deterioration of someone's health.
I am an occasional smoker and when I wake up after having several cigarettes throughout the evening, I can feel the impact on my breathing the next morning when I wake up and after around three days that eases off and I am back to normal again, though smoking affects everyone differently. Cigarette smoking also does not cause cancers, all it does increase the risk of you developing cancer, other factors will be involved if a smoker gets a cancer. I bet a lot of cancers are brought on by air pollution and the food that we eat i.e. fast food that is full of trans fats etc.
As for smoking around children, I think that adults shouldn't smoke around children anymore than they should consume alcohol around a child. I have a nephew and I would never consider smoking or consuming alcohol around him. To me it's irresponsible, irrespective of the impact that smoking may or may not have on his health.
They are both about one group forcing their will on the rest of the population their is no paradox. they are both movement's of state control of the masses.
i think the term abuse is over the top because abuse means deliberate intent to harm. So to describe some one sitting in their car with the windows open having a cigarette as deliberately intending to harm the children is sick. Why is it sick because it's a way of forcing the public to behave in a manor that suites a small group of individuals with a hatred of other peoples decisions and beliefs by casting them into a category of person that will harm a child for personal gratification.Sickening? A bit over the top. Smacking a child is abuse in my view and deliberately exposing a child to carcinogens in a confined space is also abuse.
Well at least that's some level of common sense.Nothing. I don't believe in laws being passed that are impractical to enforce.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. They listen with the intent to reply.” Stephen Covey
They have very different ideologies. It is impossible to be a fascist and a communist.
I completely agree with you if the smoker is unaware of the damage caused by passive smoking. But most people surely are aware of the carciogenic effects of cigarettes so when I say child abuse, I am assuming they know what they are doing.i think the term abuse is over the top because abuse means deliberate intent to harm. So to describe some one sitting in their car with the windows open having a cigarette as deliberately intending to harm the children is sick. Why is it sick because it's a way of forcing the public to behave in a manor that suites a small group of individuals with a hatred of other peoples decisions and beliefs by casting them into a category of person that will harm a child for personal gratification.
We have far too many laws so we actually need many less laws not any more.Well at least that's some level of common sense.
The problem with politicians is they think the answer to every issue is more laws. My own view is that MPs would be much better value for money if we paid them salaries to stay home and do nothing. Unfortunately their egos are so big they actually think they are making things better with all their new laws. In reality they are usually making things worse.
No you can't be a fascist and a communist but the ideologies are very similar. Fascism was toned down communism. But fascism was still the ambition that the state could provide for the people it just had slightly diffrent ideas on what people were not playing by the states rules.
I'm just not buying it. Child abuse is the strongest term known and given that when my generation were growing up second hand smoke was more common than not I can't quite see how I do not know one person that is having problems as a result of living in a smoke filled environment.I completely agree with you if the smoker is unaware of the damage caused by passive smoking. But most people surely are aware of the carciogenic effects of cigarettes so when I say child abuse, I am assuming they know what they are doing.
I'm glad you at least appreciate this. The problem is you want to have your cake and eat it as most of us do. I was a big supporter of the hunting ban and did not care for what that had taken from many people. It's not till you have something you enjoy taken from you that you realise just how dangerous allowing a government to much power is.We have far too many laws so we actually need many less laws not any more.
The problem with politicians is they think the answer to every issue is more laws. My own view is that MPs would be much better value for money if we paid them salaries to stay home and do nothing. Unfortunately their egos are so big they actually think they are making things better with all their new laws. In reality they are usually making things worse.
Strangely enough it was only doing my research on the validity of the passive smoking argument I realised just how willing governments in the west are willing to lie to get their own way and how completely unconcerned for the damage that can be caused to the prosperity and freedom of the people they claim to represent when they decide it is for the greater good.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand. They listen with the intent to reply.” Stephen Covey
Fascism is not toned down communism. They have very different ideologies. Yes, there are similarities in some of the outcomes but they are in no way compatible. I suggest you look this up to discover the ideological differences.
I did explain possible reasons earlier. Unless you have the medical records of all your friends you can't possibly say whether or to what extent they were affected by passive smoking. I smoked as a teenager and my risks of getting cancer are higher than if I never smoked and there is nothing I can do about it now. I may not get cancer (I obviously hope not) but the statistics are clear. Contact with carcinogens increases the liklihood of getting cancer. And the more the exposure, the greater the risk.I'm just not buying it. Child abuse is the strongest term known and given that when my generation were growing up second hand smoke was more common than not I can't quite see how I do not know one person that is having problems as a result of living in a smoke filled environment.
But I'm not advocating any changes in the laws so I don't see how you think I want to have my cake and eat it.I'm glad you at least appreciate this. The problem is you want to have your cake and eat it as most of us do. I was a big supporter of the hunting ban and did not care for what that had taken from many people. It's not till you have something you enjoy taken from you that you realise just how dangerous allowing a government to much power is.
You will have to explain that to me. It is doctors and medical researchers that are reporting statsitical evidence on the effects of passive smoking on children. You don't need to listen to politicians to get the facts that doctors are reporting.Strangely enough it was only doing my research on the validity of the passive smoking argument I realised just how willing governments in the west are willing to lie to get their own way and how completely unconcerned for the damage that can be caused to the prosperity and freedom of the people they claim to represent when they decide it is for the greater good.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks