Bazooka_From_Viduka

and Fop, to break you out of your paradox, since you claim passive smoking is harmless, please explain this report: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups.../dh_4101475.pdf I suspect you will dismiss it, but this is the evidence that MP's took a free vote on, so these are the facts you need to refute if you want to retain even the slightest piece of dignity in this thread

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP). fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban. you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references *rolls back time* Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then you're only proving my point really

the problem is, you think you're making a point by being sarcastic and convoluted, when you actually forget to include any facts or examples to back yourself up

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP). fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban. you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP). fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then Find me the relevant passage that exempts them first and I will.... oh wait. no exemption required it's the whole point of the bill No exemption exists, although it would have done under the original proposed ban. Out of interest why was it only food serving pubs then in the first place? (before the scare and lies got into it) and not non-food pubs and private members club? Or do they just not count like miners and motorcyclists (and the senile and blind?) once again you lose me with your irrelevant throwbacks to long gone references. seriously, what have the miners got to do with this point? I'm expecting you to just say, it's your point and a stupid smiley, but you've seriously lost me tbh I'm beginning to think you have something again miners tbh. More by accident (and propaganda) than design. Not what I'm talking about. Still not quite. Actually what I insist is that second hand smoke is a non-issue, but you agreed with me on that ages ago. where did I do that then?

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then Find me the relevant passage that exempts them first and I will.... oh wait. no exemption required it's the whole point of the bill No exemption exists, although it would have done under the original proposed ban. Out of interest why was it only food serving pubs then in the first place? (before the scare and lies got into it) and not non-food pubs and private members club? Or do they just not count like miners and motorcyclists (and the senile and blind?) once again you lose me with your irrelevant throwbacks to long gone references. seriously, what have the miners got to do with this point? I'm expecting you to just say, it's your point and a stupid smiley, but you've seriously lost me tbh the excemption was for working mens clubs, which have STAFF, so again, what's your point? how is the fact that wmc's were eventually included make this a bill not about workers? go and gather a group of smokers together and call yourselves a club. perfectly legal have an employee present, illegal but you still insist this bill is not about worker protection?

channel 4 now, all about the history of smoking and the media hilarious some of the absolute crap peddled about smoking by the tobacco companies, and the government is being accused of being sneaky?

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then Find me the relevant passage that exempts them first and I will.... oh wait. no exemption required it's the whole point of the bill but that would make it a bill protecting workers and not an anti smoking human rights issue wouldn't it, so that can't be right surely.....

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then

Aye it's fine if you go blind or go senile if it costs "too much" money. Just so long as it doesn't cost too much treating smokers, eh? I thought we made more money out of smokers than we spent? do you have a clue what the costs of all these applications are or was this a daft off topic post for the hell of it?

Funny smells, I think. discrimination in the workplace actually Hehe yes, now that every other "argument" has been shot down in flames you seem to have settled on that (except for miners for which "discrimination" is clearly fine you believe ). Via the revolution, the workers should not be stinky!!! Again, nope. Not unless it's simply a group of people in someones house, there could have been an exemption but they rejected it IIRC. what other definition have you got for a smokers club then? You must have lead a sheltered life if you don't know what I'm talking about. A personal private party in ones own home, yes. But that isn't what I'm talking about. Nope even in premises owned by said club. Yes that'd be why your comment after my first comment would be: Dissemble all you like, we both know your crusade ain't about workplace discrimination. christ you don't even know the law that you are arguing about I suggest you go read it, a private smoking club is perfectly legal

I still want to know what this 3 weeks has to do with it

considering a nearby sewage plant flooded, I would think there is a high likelihood that lake contains a few turds