Sheikah

Drug taking increases because frankly it is addictive and makes people feel good, that's why if it was legal I still think it would be very popular still. Which I don't display. My points have always been that I believe (never said that everyone else should share my view) it would be a good thing for smoking to one day eventually be banned, his view is to state plainly what I am, as if it is written fact.

I don't see it that way, the fact I come on here rarely works both ways. I don't know you, you don't know me. So take your "I'm always right" attitude elsewhere. =D

Exactly, it was a waste of time personally insulting me.

Fair enough, but I still don't care if you call me pompous. But really I don't see how my time here should be any different, I don't make it a habbit to read up on people's personal life anyway.

Christ...need I keep explaining this. YES, the air is filtered, but unless you had a very powerful vacuum above each individual seat, it is inevitable that if someone on a seat near you started smoking that you'd start breathing in some smoke. I really doubt there were any strong vacuum systems then anyway. The actual air pumped back in may have been better for you (as far as pumped air goes), but that doesn't mean direct smoke from those near you wouldn't go into your lungs. You're right, and I'm damn proud of that. You can't pin the proliferation of drugs to the fact heroin was made illegal. I think that drug taking would have increased anyway. Prescribing heroin may well mean people could just sell it, so I don't think the government would want to go down that route.

Then it would seem you're a closed-minded and disgusting person, with no care for others. I'm utterly gobsmacked that you think heroin should be legalised, as well as thinking that it was better for people when people could all smoke on planes (imagine sitting in a room with cigarette smoke circulating the room on a long-distance flight). But what do I care, you're obviously more knowledgable about the effects of drugs, aren't you? I'm sure this knowledge is from your friends or something, not any form of education. Nothing you say can bother me, really. You just seem like someone really messed up to me, only because your views on everything are extreme and you even admitted in another topic that you wanted offend your parents with your choices in life. To be called pompous? I couldn't really care. Right jayseven, I've had a look through your really long post and again you've used a lot of examples that don't seem relevant. Smoking on an aeroplane, despite filtration, would mean that you would be getting smoke in your face. Obviously you would need a constant supply of oxygen and they couldn't just keep pumping out smoke-air, but it seem blatantly obvious that people smoking near to you would be releasing smoke into your direction. Unless there were ultra vacuums attached above each seat, which seems extremely unlikely, smoke would definitely be around you and you'd be breathing in a nasty cocktail of chemicals. Moving on, your examples seem frankly bizarre and unrelated to smoking. Fireworks allowed at one time a year? What does this have to do with smoking? What would the point be in allowing to smoke one time a year? Fireworks are obviously banned most of the year since they can be dangerous, but shouldn't be in the right hands. You can't say the same for smoking, which is always bad for you. By allowing fireworks for a short period of time they reduce the risk. Really my point about asbestos sums up what I'm saying - a banned substance, banned because it was a danger to health (to further compare it, it even causes cancer). Therefore, it isn't anything to do with my opinion that things bad for you get banned. I wasn't even alive when it was banned, so how could I be? Why would my opinion be to do with the government taking action on something? I am confused you ever went down that road. I do not argue as if every smoker is a dick, when I said before "some smokers are selfish beyond belief, etc" I was quoting nightwolf's reply to thirtynine, as clearly thirtynine demonstrated he couldn't give a shit. I realise you like smokers to have a choice, but like I say, it's not a wise choice as it's doing no good for you. It wouldn't be the worst thing if people one day weren't allowed to smoke. Regarding wars, that is a different matter. Wars are fought for an eventual outcome, with Iraq we intended to stop an oppressive regime. There is no good outcome to be had from smoking.

I will kill you, you can't borrow something to someone.

Have a choice to take heroin? Seriously I don't know what you're suggesting, no one should ever take that.

Aren't they just airheads?

I dislike him, he has funny eyes. Charlie's death was an injustice, a huge part of the show died along with him.

Where are the masculinists? There's feminists, but no masculinists. I hereby propose I become the first masculinist. Our first project will be to demand quadruple pay!

Yes but it would reduce a chunk of the workforce of Britain to a quivering wreck of junkies.

"Others" can easily apply to people who are smoking, in the eyes of the government. Stopping others from being killed or becoming sick is one of their top priorities. Which it isn't really, even though it's somewhat recycled it isn't carcinogenic and full of god knows what else, which would have been the case if people were smoking near you (imagine everyone doing that at once, bloody hell).

You seem to think that I am deliberately considering what is male and female just to annoy you. I see gender no different to age; if you have a facelift that doesn't minus a year off your life. Before you start getting more mad, I have no problem with people who are transgender, I just don't believe that the gender attribute is really changed, as a human hand has just altered the appearance. I have no problem in believing that a man can 'live as a woman' though.

A physical characteristic can be changed, yes, but the thought processes of a male and female are very different. I still see gender as a scientific term. I'm actually a student from Manchester Uni... what about you?

Most are, but the guy you were replying to didn't seem to care about it even being banned on aeroplanes. Rokhead, I admit, I am extremely sorry. I'm sorry that I think the banning of fags to save smokers from illness and death is a good idea. I'll go meditate in a mountain for my extremely selfish thoughts about people not dying.

It's not ignorant, it's a scientific fact that your gender is determined by your DNA, without sounding offensive anyone could have surgery done to them, but it wouldn't necessarily mean they were, say, a dolphin if they had dolphin parts attached to them (think that South Park episode).

Fair enough, I still believe gender is determined as having XX or XY chromosomes, what with being a budding scientist and all. Nothing against people who are transgender though. Although a lot of transexuals I've ever seen I wouldn't have classified as women.. >_>

Are you some hippy?

If you had your penis cut off, surgery and breast implants but in, I'd still say you'd be male, since that was what you were born as and a gender is really something determined by your DNA. I never contested the fact that statistically men get in more accidents, my point is that there should be laws in place meaning that you can't base it on the gender of someone. Yes, it would mean more payouts for men, but laws exist throughout life costing people millions. Like I'll say again, if people could get away with paying one gender less for manual work or something, companies would make a killing. Failing this, there should be some additional test for getting insurance, and you should get charged appropriately based on that, not over gender. Why should I have to pay if chavs try simulate burnout in their supermarket car park to upload a video to youtube?

I wouldn't bother, some smokers are frankly ignorant and selfish beyond belief. As long as they get their fix of nicotine they couldn't give a ****.

Read my post again, I said that age was obviously something fair to judge since a young fresh driver would have no experience. To judge on the grounds of having a penis though is frankly offensive.

But statistics would show that a man is capable of lifting more, possibly allowing him to be more efficient at a job, yet the law states either gender must be paid the same. Don't get me wrong, women might well be better at something else yet men would be paid the same. So why can't there be laws charging genders the same too? I'm not talking about age, since obviously a younger driver has less experience, and an old one might be senile. But gender is specifically taking into account the 'lads like going fast' concept, which is stereotypical.

I don't know what pubs you go in, sounds like a shit night out. The airline thing is a choice the companies made, so it's not like we should be grateful to smokers when they were allowed to smoke. Also, even if I'm breathing recycled air I'd rather do that than breathe in cigarette smoke. Such foul stuff.

Yeh, a job of a skydiver is a personal choice, and one that you would know the risks of before taking it up. But your gender is set in stone - and I don't consider surgery to say otherwise. :p It might also be better financially to pay, say, a female builder less than a male builder than have to pay a woman the same amount, yet laws stop this from happening. The same laws should exist within car insurance IMO.