Like I said - make it illegal to buy or STFU.shepherd wrote:<ex smoker>black star wrote:Until the government outlaws tobacco completely they shouldn't be making it difficuilt for smokers to light up. How many people are killed in road smashes by drivers under the influence of smoke. So you can get boozed up abe get served legally to a point where you are over the limit to drive but you can't have a ciggy at the same time. Its ridiculous. Either make it illegal and stop profitting from the taxes or STFU.
that is totally different ... when you drink you don't breathe disgusting smelly smoke into the air ... you drink it out of the bottle straight into yr mouth ... the main objection ppl have to smokers in clubs is because it affects the quality of air in the place, gets stanky smoke all over yr clothes and is generally pretty selfish, inconsiderate and obnoxious as a habit.
</ex smoker>
New 2000 person venue, no smoking venues, and you!
I have to disagree a little bit Shepherd, sorry. My night out gets affected by drunken louts who think it's funny to knock you over, or be obscenely rude, or yell, or punch people, or throw things, or fall over, or take their dicks out, or vomit. The environment is plenty effected when people get drunk, but just cause it's not something you can measure doesn't make it any less annoying. I reckon if you're in a bar/nightclub, you have to expect to be confronted by stuff, whether it be smokers, drunk people, pilling people or whatever. Comes with the territory...black star wrote:Like I said - make it illegal to buy or STFU.shepherd wrote:<ex smoker>black star wrote:Until the government outlaws tobacco completely they shouldn't be making it difficuilt for smokers to light up. How many people are killed in road smashes by drivers under the influence of smoke. So you can get boozed up abe get served legally to a point where you are over the limit to drive but you can't have a ciggy at the same time. Its ridiculous. Either make it illegal and stop profitting from the taxes or STFU.
that is totally different ... when you drink you don't breathe disgusting smelly smoke into the air ... you drink it out of the bottle straight into yr mouth ... the main objection ppl have to smokers in clubs is because it affects the quality of air in the place, gets stanky smoke all over yr clothes and is generally pretty selfish, inconsiderate and obnoxious as a habit.
</ex smoker>
Only the meek get pinched...the bold survive
i don't disagree with you mixstress - that's why i never go out ... cos it's caving!!! If not the smokes, then the pissheads, or the standing, the waiting, the getting a cab, the hangovers etc etc
BUT let us not forget! Nightclubs are first and foremost licenced premises with the primary revenue source of selling alcohol ... so complaining about the side effects of people consuming alcohol in an alcohol bar is a bit much
BUT let us not forget! Nightclubs are first and foremost licenced premises with the primary revenue source of selling alcohol ... so complaining about the side effects of people consuming alcohol in an alcohol bar is a bit much
They sell cigarettes don't they?? I know many a bar with a vending machine installed. Will the government be removing those or what?? They should, if they wanna get the right message across...shepherd wrote:i don't disagree with you mixstress - that's why i never go out ... cos it's caving!!! If not the smokes, then the pissheads, or the standing, the waiting, the getting a cab, the hangovers etc etc
BUT let us not forget! Nightclubs are first and foremost licenced premises with the primary revenue source of selling alcohol ... so complaining about the side effects of people consuming alcohol in an alcohol bar is a bit much
PS: I don't go out enough to warrant a rant about it, I just like playing devil's advocate
Only the meek get pinched...the bold survive
-
breaksRbest
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:24 pm
- Location: 37°49'S 144°58' E
I've said this on another forum, but I'll say it here too.
What I find MOST amusing is the biggest complaint from the anti-smokers is the smell of tobacco on their clothes and NOT the (very slim) chance of getting cancer from 2nd hand smoke.
It's as if they all don't know what a washing machine or shower is.
What I find MOST amusing is the biggest complaint from the anti-smokers is the smell of tobacco on their clothes and NOT the (very slim) chance of getting cancer from 2nd hand smoke.
It's as if they all don't know what a washing machine or shower is.
I think I am, Therefore I am. I think
from experience the revenue from selling smokes in a club would be maybe 1-2% of total revenue ... so they could easily get rid of the machines if they had to.
It will eb interesting to see how the tobacco industry work with clubs as a rersult of these ... now they have all kinds of account managers and marketing types who offer clubs all kinds of kickbacks ... from fit outs to paying for internationals, to subsidising costs etc etc in order to have their product stocked in the machines.
At metro we'd be offered $5-10k per event from tobacco manufacturers to set up a small stall in the event selling their product (unbranded stall mind you) and shut off the cigarette machines.
For clubs (which generally operate week to week on small margins) these bribes were very appealing and ensured the cig companies were looked after.
It will eb interesting to see how the tobacco industry work with clubs as a rersult of these ... now they have all kinds of account managers and marketing types who offer clubs all kinds of kickbacks ... from fit outs to paying for internationals, to subsidising costs etc etc in order to have their product stocked in the machines.
At metro we'd be offered $5-10k per event from tobacco manufacturers to set up a small stall in the event selling their product (unbranded stall mind you) and shut off the cigarette machines.
For clubs (which generally operate week to week on small margins) these bribes were very appealing and ensured the cig companies were looked after.
Drunks, pill-poppers, rowdy characters and people pulling their dicks out (how often does this REALLY happen to you Mixtress?) don't often result in your death, occasionally (granted) but not often.
The whole point of banning cigarettes in their health issue (not the smell BRB, that's just a secondary concern to the Government I'd think). But the fact that these sports sticks kill you. They kill more than anything else. More than alcohol, more than other drugs, more that the road toll, more than firearms - prob more than all of these combined.
From the people who work in these premises to the patrons that frequent them, smokers and anti-smokers alike - everyone in a smoke-filled venue runs the risk of developing a whole multitude of diseases and illnesses alike.
PS: pill-popping and 'dick-pulling-out' are illegal as well as far as I know.
Like it or not, ciggies are on the way out.
What I find most amusing about these debates/arguments/conversations is how smokers defend themselves that everyone else SHOULD be exposed to cigarette smoke.
The whole point of banning cigarettes in their health issue (not the smell BRB, that's just a secondary concern to the Government I'd think). But the fact that these sports sticks kill you. They kill more than anything else. More than alcohol, more than other drugs, more that the road toll, more than firearms - prob more than all of these combined.
From the people who work in these premises to the patrons that frequent them, smokers and anti-smokers alike - everyone in a smoke-filled venue runs the risk of developing a whole multitude of diseases and illnesses alike.
PS: pill-popping and 'dick-pulling-out' are illegal as well as far as I know.
Like it or not, ciggies are on the way out.
What I find most amusing about these debates/arguments/conversations is how smokers defend themselves that everyone else SHOULD be exposed to cigarette smoke.
Last edited by Direkt on Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
---- Comparing people dieing from drunk driving to smoking is a totally irrelevant analogy and ruined the whole point of what you were trying to say Black Star.
---- Ben, are you or have you ever been a smoker? Do you now give any credit to the fact that it is addictive? Or to the fact that a lot of people started smoking before there were clear signals that it would in fact kill us?
The fact that you included that you don’t go our because of hang-overs provided us with enough evidence that you are just over it, so complaining about smoking seems irrelevant from you, because it seems you admitted you will complain about anything.
---- As for not banning it in venues or specified areas until it is banned all together is a bit rash. It is going to have to be done in stages. I can understand where this new law is coming from, and as a smoker am disappointed, but take it on the chin. It is a shame not most smokers will not quit until forced, or until it because so unmanageable that quitting becomes a viable option, but the fact is IT IS ADDICITVE and not so easy to just walk away from.
---- Ben, are you or have you ever been a smoker? Do you now give any credit to the fact that it is addictive? Or to the fact that a lot of people started smoking before there were clear signals that it would in fact kill us?
The fact that you included that you don’t go our because of hang-overs provided us with enough evidence that you are just over it, so complaining about smoking seems irrelevant from you, because it seems you admitted you will complain about anything.
---- As for not banning it in venues or specified areas until it is banned all together is a bit rash. It is going to have to be done in stages. I can understand where this new law is coming from, and as a smoker am disappointed, but take it on the chin. It is a shame not most smokers will not quit until forced, or until it because so unmanageable that quitting becomes a viable option, but the fact is IT IS ADDICITVE and not so easy to just walk away from.
dboy - yes i used to smoke.
yes i do have some regard for the fact it is addictive. This doesn't change what I am saying.
but people whinging about smoking in venues is fkn futile and time wasting. What's next - people whinging they can't smoke at work???
It's an enclosed indoor space ... get over it or find other places to go out which allow you to engage in yr addiction - like outdoor parties, street performances etc
Like it or not, smoking is considered by most as fkn annoying. In regards to brb's point about washing machines etc ... lots of things can be washed out ... i may enjoy urinating on dancefloors nightclubs but I don't do it ... even though if i pissed all over someones clothes it'd still wash out of them once they put them in the fisher and paykel.
Sure that is a rash analogy and I am taking the piss - but just cos you can wash something out doesn't make it right. Spewing in a cab isn't illegal but fuck it's annoying and inconsiderate for both the driver and the fellow passengers. Smoking is as well - if we remove all the violin plucking overtones about addiction etc and look at it for what it is. Even as a smoker I could appreciate that.
yes i do have some regard for the fact it is addictive. This doesn't change what I am saying.
but people whinging about smoking in venues is fkn futile and time wasting. What's next - people whinging they can't smoke at work???
It's an enclosed indoor space ... get over it or find other places to go out which allow you to engage in yr addiction - like outdoor parties, street performances etc
Like it or not, smoking is considered by most as fkn annoying. In regards to brb's point about washing machines etc ... lots of things can be washed out ... i may enjoy urinating on dancefloors nightclubs but I don't do it ... even though if i pissed all over someones clothes it'd still wash out of them once they put them in the fisher and paykel.
Sure that is a rash analogy and I am taking the piss - but just cos you can wash something out doesn't make it right. Spewing in a cab isn't illegal but fuck it's annoying and inconsiderate for both the driver and the fellow passengers. Smoking is as well - if we remove all the violin plucking overtones about addiction etc and look at it for what it is. Even as a smoker I could appreciate that.
-
Lizkins
- Junior Vice President
- Posts: 17099
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:09 pm
- Location: Never never land
Direktor wrote: What I find most amusing about these debates/arguments/conversations is how smokers defend themselves that everyone else SHOULD be exposed to cigarette smoke.
i don't want to force second hand smoke on anyone, and i apologise when i accidentally blow smoke in someone's direction.
i just want to still be able to smoke inside and watch the DJs spin their records.
it ain't gonna happen i know, but dang it Direktor, i gotta right to whinge til i can't whinge no more
okay i'll stop.
on a good point - my hang overs will be minimal most likely once this all comes into affect.
Well said, my man!shepherd wrote:Sure that is a rash analogy and I am taking the piss - but just cos you can wash something out doesn't make it right. Spewing in a cab isn't illegal but fuck it's annoying and inconsiderate for both the driver and the fellow passengers. Smoking is as well - if we remove all the violin plucking overtones about addiction etc and look at it for what it is. Even as a smoker I could appreciate that.
Lizkins wrote:Direktor wrote: What I find most amusing about these debates/arguments/conversations is how smokers defend themselves that everyone else SHOULD be exposed to cigarette smoke.
i don't want to force second hand smoke on anyone, and i apologise when i accidentally blow smoke in someone's direction.
i just want to still be able to smoke inside and watch the DJs spin their records.
it ain't gonna happen i know, but dang it Direktor, i gotta right to whinge til i can't whinge no more
okay i'll stop.
on a good point - my hang overs will be minimal most likely once this all comes into affect.
Nice work Liz!!!nopelynt wrote:A question for the non-smokers.
Do you do drugs?
btw dboy - it seems you ahve taken what i said completely out of context
i never said i didn't go out cos of hangovers ... i said generally going out was caving. I also never admitted I'd complain about anything ... so what if I don't think going out and sitting around a nightclub environment is something totally awesome ... does it mean my point isn't valid. Let me know if I can't have an opinion on things just so I can stop wasting my breath in future!----
The fact that you included that you don’t go our because of hang-overs provided us with enough evidence that you are just over it, so complaining about smoking seems irrelevant from you, because it seems you admitted you will complain about anything.
I'm not advocating cigarettes in clubs, you may have misconstrued my post. I'm saying that there are heaps of other things that we're exposed to when we're out, and cigarettes is but one (or butt one...hardy har har).Direktor wrote:Drunks, pill-poppers, rowdy characters and people pulling their dicks out (how often does this REALLY happen to you Mixtress?) don't often result in your death, occasionally (granted) but not often.
The whole point of banning cigarettes in their health issue (not the smell BRB, that's just a secondary concern to the Government I'd think). But the fact that these sports sticks kill you. They kill more than anything else. More than alcohol, more than other drugs, more that the road toll, more than firearms - prob more than all of these combined.
From the people who work in these premises to the patrons that frequent them, smokers and anti-smokers alike - everyone in a smoke-filled venue runs the risk of developing a whole multitude of diseases and illnesses alike.
PS: pill-popping and 'dick-pulling-out' are illegal as well as far as I know.
Like it or not, ciggies are on the way out.
What I find most amusing about these debates/arguments/conversations is how smokers defend themselves that everyone else SHOULD be exposed to cigarette smoke.
I wholeheartedly agree that it's a cause for concern for people working in clubs, and for that reason alone, I appreciate the new laws. I will happily go outside for a cigarette for the sake of another's health. I understand your stance Direktor.
Query: If cigarettes are such a 'concern' for the government, why do they collect a huge percentage in tax? Why not charge 10% GST like everything else? Better yet, make tobacco illegal?? You know why they don't do it...money money money. They're putting a bandaid on a wound they themselves inflicted on the public in show of 'concern', but they're still lining pockets
BTW, dicks do get flopped...
I've seen it 
And it is a health risk
Only the meek get pinched...the bold survive
-
ghetto kitty
- Posts: 13157
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 1:40 pm
- Contact:
i am interested in what the DJs among us will do.
i mean, not that they should be exempt from any law that the rest of us has to adhere to, but smoking kinda DOES seem to come with the territory, and i do not want djs ducking off and leaving records playing to chuff down quick on the back stairs for example.
I would probably let them smoke behind the decks, but then, i am not a venue owner, and liable for fines.
i will have to enforce the new law i guess...
i mean, not that they should be exempt from any law that the rest of us has to adhere to, but smoking kinda DOES seem to come with the territory, and i do not want djs ducking off and leaving records playing to chuff down quick on the back stairs for example.
I would probably let them smoke behind the decks, but then, i am not a venue owner, and liable for fines.
i will have to enforce the new law i guess...
Pretty sure I know where you're going with this.... that drugs can kill you, drugs are bad.lynt wrote:A question for the non-smokers.
Do you do drugs?
That's a given.
But.......
Not all non-smokers do drugs. In fact I'd wage a bet that there's a higher percentage on non-drug users in the non-smoking category than vice versus.
Also, yeah I do drugs. But I don't do them every night. If I worked in a club every night, I'd be FORCED to breathe these lethal gasses in every night.
Hell, even as a punter or MC I'm forced to breath the shit in every time I step foot in a club (not to mention other areas) and I don't party (take gear) much at all these days.
I think the all the problems with cigarettes, the medical concerns, the aromatice concerns, the passive inhalation concerns, financial difficuilty of addicts etc can all be arradicated with one swift bill passed by parliament. This is what shits me the most. We all know cigarettea are bad,mmm. Because of kick backs, bribes and profits from tax everyoen is profiting from them except the people who are slowly dying or being killed by the smoker next to them. Make them illegal. Make smokers get a prescription like the methadone programme and slowly reduce the maount of cigarettes per week under the pharmacy benefits database. No one will want to offer any of their precious ciggies to a non-legit smoker or kids and no potential new users would get addicted.
I don't drink and drive so I'd like the chance to drink and smoke instead.
I don't drink and drive so I'd like the chance to drink and smoke instead.
i think they charge such huge levies, taxes etc on tobacco is because the cost of hospitalising victims of tobacco is in the billions ... and the taxes raised from cigs don't even get near covering the health cost absorbed by taxpayers. The higher cost should also be a deterrent to smokers (but I can testify it doesn't make you smoke any less)Query: If cigarettes are such a 'concern' for the government, why do they collect a huge percentage in tax? Why not charge 10% GST like everything else? Better yet, make tobacco illegal?? You know why they don't do it...money money money. They're putting a bandaid on a wound they themselves inflicted on the public in show of 'concern', but they're still lining pockets
i don't think making tobacco illegal is the answer. Personally I think people are generally smart enough to make their own decisions and not need a government to take away something that was previously legal.
Whilst I am not speaking on behalf on the Governemt I can hazard a guess.The Mixtress wrote:
Query: If cigarettes are such a 'concern' for the government, why do they collect a huge percentage in tax? Why not charge 10% GST like everything else? Better yet, make tobacco illegal?? You know why they don't do it...money money money. They're putting a bandaid on a wound they themselves inflicted on the public in show of 'concern', but they're still lining pockets
BTW, dicks do get flopped...
And it is a health risk
No.1: by raising the cost of cigarettes, perhaps that will deter some people, it's not exactly going to add to the allure of smoking.
No.2: to cover the hospital costs/research costs that go into cancer sufferers and the 1001 other ilnesses that stem from cigarettes.
As I said before, I think ciggies are getting phased out. Step 1: introduce warnings. Step 2: raise prices. Step 3: introduce the illegality of smoking (first it was when meals were being served, then sheltered P/T spots, now bars and clubs, next.....)
Just my 2c.
-
ghetto kitty
- Posts: 13157
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 1:40 pm
- Contact:
one swift bill could change the world.
why oh why wont they change from
petrol to hydrogen
from drought to de salination
from illegal drugs to injecting rooms
from too many babies to population control
i know im being devils advocate, but there is huge factors that means that none of these things will ever be as simple as one little bill.
it sucks, but its the truth.
why oh why wont they change from
petrol to hydrogen
from drought to de salination
from illegal drugs to injecting rooms
from too many babies to population control
i know im being devils advocate, but there is huge factors that means that none of these things will ever be as simple as one little bill.
it sucks, but its the truth.
Yeah, but you're not FORCED to work there. I find that argument a bit of a dead end. Plenty of other jobs on the planet that don't involve working in a bar. Oh well, soon to change anyway.Direktor wrote:Also, yeah I do drugs. But I don't do them every night. If I worked in a club every night, I'd be FORCED to breathe these lethal gasses in every night.
Hey, that's how I started smoking! Now I'm quitting.Direktor wrote:Hell, even as a punter or MC I'm forced to breath the shit in every time I step foot in a club (not to mention other areas) and I don't party (take gear) much at all these days.
As for people hanging shit on smokers; People are old enough to make their own decisions, so please don't judge the smokers for their "dirty habits". No smoker is judging non-smokers about their "healthy lifestyle". Each to their own.
One day we'll all get along. Like breathing car exhaust while I wait for the tram. Bloody motorists (cue Chan).
Apparently we can't make up our own minds to go outside and have a cigarette and we need the government to make smoking inside illegal. What's the diff??shepherd wrote:i think they charge such huge levies, taxes etc on tobacco is because the cost of hospitalising victims of tobacco is in the billions ... and the taxes raised from cigs don't even get near covering the health cost absorbed by taxpayers. The higher cost should also be a deterrent to smokers (but I can testify it doesn't make you smoke any less)Query: If cigarettes are such a 'concern' for the government, why do they collect a huge percentage in tax? Why not charge 10% GST like everything else? Better yet, make tobacco illegal?? You know why they don't do it...money money money. They're putting a bandaid on a wound they themselves inflicted on the public in show of 'concern', but they're still lining pockets
i don't think making tobacco illegal is the answer. Personally I think people are generally smart enough to make their own decisions and not need a government to take away something that was previously legal.
Any smoker will tell you they pay extra on their life insurance.
(again, playing devil's advocate, cause I'm bored right now
)Only the meek get pinched...the bold survive
I tend to agree that having person freedom is mroe important than legislation. Prescriptions and venues for people with repscriptions, ie the bar staff, DJ's and punters all smoke - it could be like all ages gigs.shepherd wrote:i think they charge such huge levies, taxes etc on tobacco is because the cost of hospitalising victims of tobacco is in the billions ... and the taxes raised from cigs don't even get near covering the health cost absorbed by taxpayers. The higher cost should also be a deterrent to smokers (but I can testify it doesn't make you smoke any less)Query: If cigarettes are such a 'concern' for the government, why do they collect a huge percentage in tax? Why not charge 10% GST like everything else? Better yet, make tobacco illegal?? You know why they don't do it...money money money. They're putting a bandaid on a wound they themselves inflicted on the public in show of 'concern', but they're still lining pockets
i don't think making tobacco illegal is the answer. Personally I think people are generally smart enough to make their own decisions and not need a government to take away something that was previously legal.
-
ghetto kitty
- Posts: 13157
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 1:40 pm
- Contact:
Still doesn't change the fact that companies could have their asses sued off for not providing a safe working environment.lynt wrote:Yeah, but you're not FORCED to work there. I find that argument a bit of a dead end. Plenty of other jobs on the planet that don't involve working in a bar. Oh well, soon to change anyway.Direktor wrote:Also, yeah I do drugs. But I don't do them every night. If I worked in a club every night, I'd be FORCED to breathe these lethal gasses in every night.
lynt wrote:Hey, that's how I started smoking! Now I'm quitting.Direktor wrote:Hell, even as a punter or MC I'm forced to breath the shit in every time I step foot in a club (not to mention other areas) and I don't party (take gear) much at all these days.
lynt wrote: As for people hanging shit on smokers; People are old enough to make their own decisions, so please don't judge the smokers for their "dirty habits". No smoker is judging non-smokers about their "healthy lifestyle". Each to their own.
Fair enough mate. But when others choices impact others directly, I believe they are entitled to defend themselves (in a civil manner preferably).
I couldn't care less if Mr.X wants to smoke like a chimney. But if I run the risk of becoming very ill, and perhaps even dying due to his choice - then I'm no longer so blase about it.
Even in the least, my taxes will pay for him when he gets sick due to their choice of smoking...
Last edited by Direkt on Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
breaksRbest
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:24 pm
- Location: 37°49'S 144°58' E
Since day dot mate. You are aware of the public health system? Or is there something I'm missing here.... Does the Government actually turn their back on lung cancer patients, ala USA, and say if you can't afford the help - you ain't getting it?breaksRbest wrote:since when did tax payers start paying the hospital bills of cancer sufferers?
-
breaksRbest
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:24 pm
- Location: 37°49'S 144°58' E
I'm pretty sure it's the same as everything else
you break a leg, you pay the bill, you get cancer you pay for the treatment
There's a story in the news right now about a C.F.A guy who has a daughter with cancer and they had a fund raising event to pay for her hospitalisation and treatment.
Why would they need to raise money in this way if tax payers are footing the bill?
you break a leg, you pay the bill, you get cancer you pay for the treatment
There's a story in the news right now about a C.F.A guy who has a daughter with cancer and they had a fund raising event to pay for her hospitalisation and treatment.
Why would they need to raise money in this way if tax payers are footing the bill?
I think I am, Therefore I am. I think
-
ghetto kitty
- Posts: 13157
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 1:40 pm
- Contact:
-
stovequeen
- Posts: 8552
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 5:26 am
-
ghetto kitty
- Posts: 13157
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 1:40 pm
- Contact:
I think they're one of the sponsors. Its the only form of advertising that ciggie companies are still allowed to do.stovequeen wrote:You guys know Phillip Morris is 'funding' this new 2,000 people venue.. yeah?
Philip Morris own Marlboro, therefore as a sponsor they can do the whole Marlboro girl thing. I'm pretty sure Phillip Morris sponsor a few clubs.
-
nickdivision
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:41 am
- Location: wearing shorts and singlet by a river somewhere
- Contact:
CUB own more than a few clubs, and governments pat them on the back, yet alcohol is responsible for more deaths via domestic violence, car accidents, and random violence than anything else.
cigarette companies sponsor a few nights, and they are seen as being vile organisations due to the fact that they are "cornering "the market......
after seeing the pus ridden booze hole that is cavill ave at surfers saturday night at 3am, i would much rather prefer to be surrounded by a pack of sober smokers than the pack of boozed up muzzas and ferals that i saw there on saturday night.
cigarette companies sponsor a few nights, and they are seen as being vile organisations due to the fact that they are "cornering "the market......
after seeing the pus ridden booze hole that is cavill ave at surfers saturday night at 3am, i would much rather prefer to be surrounded by a pack of sober smokers than the pack of boozed up muzzas and ferals that i saw there on saturday night.
the house is riddled with whiteants and the lane is covered in chicken shit..........
I love DJing, Id do it every night of the week if i could. I even reckon i have a mentality that means i might even be naturally determined to be a "not-shit" DJ.
I love Melbourne, its easily the best city in Australia or NZ, I dont want to live anywhere else in the world right now.
But i have contemplated moving back to NZ (even thou i have OZ citizenship) simply because I have thrown up a Hell of alot due to Nicotine poisoning, and I dont smoke!!
What is every smokers view on this??
Fuck you go home??
Deal with it??
Yeah right your throwing up from Ciggy's.
but Trust me i know the difference. I have thrown up in many different ways. I think it has to do with standing still for hours with the same air. Doing the 5 hr sets downstairs at Republika always used to kill me, but i loved it!
Should i just subject myself to lung cancer to follow my passion?
I dont force my drugs on anyone else that would feel uncomfortable about it.
I feel sorry for smokers thou, gettin help to develop a very hard addiction then getting told they cant have a life if they want to continue it.
Bring it! I have been waiting for almost 2 years for it
I love Melbourne, its easily the best city in Australia or NZ, I dont want to live anywhere else in the world right now.
But i have contemplated moving back to NZ (even thou i have OZ citizenship) simply because I have thrown up a Hell of alot due to Nicotine poisoning, and I dont smoke!!
What is every smokers view on this??
Fuck you go home??
Deal with it??
Yeah right your throwing up from Ciggy's.
but Trust me i know the difference. I have thrown up in many different ways. I think it has to do with standing still for hours with the same air. Doing the 5 hr sets downstairs at Republika always used to kill me, but i loved it!
Should i just subject myself to lung cancer to follow my passion?
I dont force my drugs on anyone else that would feel uncomfortable about it.
I feel sorry for smokers thou, gettin help to develop a very hard addiction then getting told they cant have a life if they want to continue it.
Bring it! I have been waiting for almost 2 years for it
http://soundcloud.com/shikung
http://soundcloud.com/glitch-this-radio
http://www.glitchthis.com
Glitch This Radio on http://glitch.fm - Sundays, 2-4 PM
http://soundcloud.com/glitch-this-radio
http://www.glitchthis.com
Glitch This Radio on http://glitch.fm - Sundays, 2-4 PM
It's a trade off, and one side of the fence has to suffer. Most recently, the non smokers have been suffering (albeit, not in silence ). Now it's the smoker's turn. It's better to trade someone's ill health with another's annoyance at going outside.
It HAS to happen, it WILL happen and we just have to make do.
I think it's more positive than negative
). Now it's the smoker's turn. It's better to trade someone's ill health with another's annoyance at going outside.It HAS to happen, it WILL happen and we just have to make do.
I think it's more positive than negative
Only the meek get pinched...the bold survive
medicare is a substantial proportion of income tax ... which covers/subsidises medical expenses.breaksRbest wrote:since when did tax payers start paying the hospital bills of cancer sufferers?
If John X gets lung cancer and is a 55 year old unemployed dude with no provate health insurance he needs a basic level of care supplied by the fed government ... it's what we're all entitled to and we receive.
I would assume the CFA example you use could be for EXTRA care perhaps not covered under the Medicare scheme or even Private Health Insurance.
No one can contest the amount of resource hospital wise cigaratte related illnesses take - in terms of cost and beds.
"Tobacco is a major cause of morbidity in the community. An Australian study estimated that in 1992, patients with tobacco caused disease experienced nearly 100,000 hospital episodes, resulting in over 800,000 hospital bed-days. Ill health and disease due to tobacco use was responsible for around 56% of all drug-caused hospital episodes, and around 51% of drug caused hospital bed-days. Tobacco use was responsible for 3.4% of total hospital episodes and 4.9% of total hospital bed-days in 1992." (source - http://www.quit.org.au/quit/FandI/fandi ... .htm#c03t3)
edit - alcohol is also bloody high! I think most wouldn't assume it'd make up such a large proportion, including me
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.htmlMarijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.
I'm glad you added that edit, cause I was about to go nutty on those statsshepherd wrote:medicare is a substantial proportion of income tax ... which covers/subsidises medical expenses.breaksRbest wrote:since when did tax payers start paying the hospital bills of cancer sufferers?
If John X gets lung cancer and is a 55 year old unemployed dude with no provate health insurance he needs a basic level of care supplied by the fed government ... it's what we're all entitled to and we receive.
I would assume the CFA example you use could be for EXTRA care perhaps not covered under the Medicare scheme or even Private Health Insurance.
No one can contest the amount of resource hospital wise cigaratte related illnesses take - in terms of cost and beds.
"Tobacco is a major cause of morbidity in the community. An Australian study estimated that in 1992, patients with tobacco caused disease experienced nearly 100,000 hospital episodes, resulting in over 800,000 hospital bed-days. Ill health and disease due to tobacco use was responsible for around 56% of all drug-caused hospital episodes, and around 51% of drug caused hospital bed-days. Tobacco use was responsible for 3.4% of total hospital episodes and 4.9% of total hospital bed-days in 1992." (source - http://www.quit.org.au/quit/FandI/fandi ... .htm#c03t3)
edit - alcohol is also bloody high! I think most wouldn't assume it'd make up such a large proportion, including me
Only the meek get pinched...the bold survive
Citizen Smif wrote:That's not the point of what I wrote.lynt wrote:http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuana.htmlMarijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.
Nowhere did I say smoking marijuana isn't bad for you.
Or will have less of a negetive effect in comparison to ciggarettes.
Chill, Winston. I posted it for the benefit of MB.C, the world doesn't revolve around your non-smoking lungs, ya know?
is the DEA really the place to get unbiased info on the effects of drugs? Im not a conspiracy theorist but ever since their inception they have been accused of supressing potentially lifesaving drugs in the name of politics as well as blocking further research to justify their prohibition.
although apparently you can still work for the DEA if your drug use has been limited to "applicants who admit to limited youthful and experimental use of marijuana" pending full-field background investigation of course. So basically if you didnt inhale you can be a drug nazi too!!
although apparently you can still work for the DEA if your drug use has been limited to "applicants who admit to limited youthful and experimental use of marijuana" pending full-field background investigation of course. So basically if you didnt inhale you can be a drug nazi too!!