Topic: Warnings on cigarrette packets/piracy trailers

[El Unicornio, mang]

Um, but you can smoke at airports, in designated areas.

[Purple Tentacle]

Smoking in packed public transport buildings?

Two words... King's Cross.


As Frinky said, it's a minimal chance, but not one worth taking.


And tube trains don't even run on aircraft fuel...

[Frinky]

Furthermore, as I remember, they also have restaurants, which may contain ovens, and even a naked flame or two.

Thats right, but they're pre-installed with fire safety in mind, aren't they? People tend not to be. In fact, people are stupid and invariably get themselves and other people killed through said stupidity.

[Bogey]

Not all of them, and certainly not in the United States.
And there are never any designated areas in bloody baggage reclaim.

I really hate flying.

[Bogey]

People tend not to be. In fact, people are stupid and invariably get themselves and other people killed through said stupidity.

Fair enough.

[Frinky]

I really hate flying.

Beucase it's not natural. It's not right. I love it, though,

[Bogey]

If God had intended us to fly, He'd have given us brains capable of inventing the aeroplane.

[Tom U4EA]

http://www.apple.com/itunes/pepsi/ads/

to see the latest piracy/mp3 ad


http://www.theregister.com/content/6/35259.html

Four children bullied by the Recording Industry Association of America will re-enact their shame for tens of millions of TV viewers today, at the behest of two giant American corporations: Apple Computer and Pepsi Cola Inc.

Instead of using actors to dramatize their shame, the RIAA, Apple and Pepsi have forced the children themselves to conform with the copyright regime, and to look suitably browbeaten as a series of captions reads: INCRIMINATED … ACCUSED … BUSTED … CHARGED.

[Bogey]

Well that's sure to push public opinion firmly in favour of the Corporations isn't it?

[wasp_f15ting]

Unless they can prove that smokers don’t cause problems passively I want them to be banned in such areas of little or no fresh air.

Actually,  a little bit of searching on google will inform you that the risk of getting smoking related illness from second hand smoke is minimal.

Penn and Teller recently did a show which debunked the whole myth surrounding passive smoking, and how doctors have lied and used wrong figures to say that passive smoking is a big danger, when in fact the real figures show that about 5 in a million people who don't regularly inhale passive smoke die of smoking related illness compared to 15 who do regularly inhale passive smoke. So yes, there is a slight danger, but it's nowhere near what has been said.
If we're going to ban smoking just because other people don't like it, why don't we also ban loud people, and smelly people, and people we don't like the look of, and buskers, and anything else which annoys us.
I'm happy to have smoking banned in restaurants, and also it's fine to have areas for only smoking, but to say that everyone else should go outside of a pub, which is a place where smoking has always gone hand in hand with drinking, just because some people don't like it, is ridiculous.

The BMJ did a study which found the links to be "weak" yes I know.. But what they did was test a 30,000+ people who were married to smokers, that does not account for partners who would leave the room or insist on their partner to smoke outside. Neither does it account for the frequency of time they spend together in which that smoke could be inhaled.

My argument is that in a packed club with no ventilation you are being exposed to far more smoke than you would do with someone smoking next to you near a bus stand, you are in an environment where the volume of air is stagnated with smoke, it does not have time to settle either, since the number of people smoking does not fluctuate for more than 5hrs + i.e. the smoke is being replinished in cycles, making "proper" air unable to get into your lungs. This is the same in concerts arenas too, the good thing with pubs is, that most of them have smoking and non smoking areas, and if there are too many smokers for me to bear I just bugger off with a pint or two. But that kind of smoke is far different from the think fog like smoke (via smoking) in clubs.

I am sure one of these smoking doesnae harm studies was funded by a tobacco conglemerate too ;-)

[Purple Tentacle]

Instead of using actors to dramatize their shame, the RIAA, Apple and Pepsi have forced the children themselves to conform with the copyright regime, and to look suitably browbeaten as a series of captions reads: INCRIMINATED ? ACCUSED ? BUSTED ? CHARGED.

I don't know about those other three bands, but Busted are fucking shit and humiliation is too good for them if they downloaded that.

[Bogey]

Yes, and another thing about clubs is all that awful loud music they play. It can damage your hearing and everything, it's like they just don't care!

If you don't like it, don't go there.

[wasp_f15ting]

Hmm not really depends on exposure and amplitude most clubs have music around 96dB (Was in a club during sound testing)  or under, thats assuming your standing next to the speakers, you can position your self away from the speakers, but with air, its not that easy and i'd have to wear a mask. Why should I have to wear a mask to go into a club that I have paid for?

With sound there are regulations, and they have to weight the output to certain standards, and if they don't they get closed down. With smoking there are no such regulations at the momment.

[Bogey]

Well, obviously I agree that there should be adequate ventilation, and I was being silly about the loudness.

Having said that, I can't stand pubs and bars that insist upon playing really loud music when no one ever dances, but that's another rant altogether.

[Purple Tentacle]

I don't think I've ever been in a pub where people have been dancing, that sounds lovely, like the lovable Irish peasants on the Titanic.

[wasp_f15ting]

Indeed, our stoodent uni is like that, playing pointless fucking music, when there is no-one to fucking listen to it !!! how the fuck are you supposed to communicate with the person next to you, cunting fucking bastards.. i hope they burn in hell slowly whilst half burnt peados bum rape them..

sorry, I'll calm myslef by my means of eno or something :blush:

[El Unicornio, mang]

The BMJ did a study which found the links to be "weak" yes I know.. But what they did was test a 30,000+ people who were married to smokers, that does not account for partners who would leave the room or insist on their partner to smoke outside. Neither does it account for the frequency of time they spend together in which that smoke could be inhaled.

My argument is that in a packed club with no ventilation you are being exposed to far more smoke than you would do with someone smoking next to you near a bus stand, you are in an environment where the volume of air is stagnated with smoke, it does not have time to settle either, since the number of people smoking does not fluctuate for more than 5hrs + i.e. the smoke is being replinished in cycles, making "proper" air unable to get into your lungs. This is the same in concerts arenas too, the good thing with pubs is, that most of them have smoking and non smoking areas, and if there are too many smokers for me to bear I just bugger off with a pint or two. But that kind of smoke is far different from the think fog like smoke (via smoking) in clubs.

I am sure one of these smoking doesnae harm studies was funded by a tobacco conglemerate too ;-)

the problem is that making clubs non-smoking would be counter-productive, as it would cause a lot of clubs to close down because, let's face it, if you go into a night club about half the people in there are smoking and I know that I wouldn't want to go to a club that didn't allow smoking. It's not just smokers who won't go, friends of smokers won't go either, and even if they did, can you imagine the chaos of having all the smokers in a club going outside every 20 minutes to light up? Or the same for a pub? Before long people would be complaining that smokers are polluting the air outside and would be screaming for them to be put in designated areas, where they can smoke and drink and swear to their hearts content......oh hang on, that's what pubs are for isn't it.
As a compromise, how about no smoking on the dance floor and designated no-smoking areas? To be honest I don't like clubs anyway, they're far too noisy, you can't have a normal conversation and the drinks are too expensive. I really don't see the point in them unless you're looking to pull.

[Bogey]

And the fact that you can be accused of being boring for stating such opinions makes me laugh somewhat.

"Conversations are so boring!"

aka

"Kissing girls! That's so gay"

I always wonder whether, in such shitjoints, if they were to take a secret poll (so people's mates wouldn't know how sad they were) asking the patrons whether they'd like the volume down a notch or two, what the results would be.

Talk less, drink more.

Cunts.

[Sherringford Hovis]

I am sooo glad smoking is banned on International flights now.. I used to dread flying because of the nausea it caused, no fresh air and recycled smoker’s air made it unbearable. I am not sure how smokers feel when they smoke, but I fucking hate the stench, and when in enough quantity I feel ill..

So you don't like smoking, but are prepared to fly?

Glad to see that you only appreciate problems when they invade your personal space and immediate consciousness. As George Monbiot pointed out recently, Each passenger on an average three-hour flight is responsible for producing as much atmospheric pollution driving 12,000 miles in a car, yet aviation fuel remains untaxed in the UK, so there are no funds available to pitifully attempt to redress the environmental damage.

There's your real WMD right there.

I of course appreciate the irony of the fact that, were I to successfully get planes banned, manufacturers probably couldn't be able to fly me my sweet, sweet fags; fuck it, I'll have nothing to mix with my bud...

[elderford]

Last time I went to the moving pictures (LOTR+2) I was incredulous to see the notice on the screen at the beginning informing me that if I was filming it I may be liable to up to 10 years in chokey and an unlimited fine.

[Morrisfan82]

My mate went to Brazil a while back & brought back some fags purely to demonstrate the kind of warnings they have on the back of the packet.

I scanned one in (after smoking the contents natch):



...Yep, that's how to stop people smoking, put a picture of a hot pregnant chick enjoying a crafty fag on the back.

[Dr. Gizmonic]

I find those warnings hilarious. I also admire the fact that the Internet, an entity the corporations believed was going to double the percentage of the gross national GDP they took home, has severed and urinated on the hand that funded it.

Sure it's stealing, sure I have no right whatsoever to the intellectual property of Dr. Dre, Pepsico, Mr. Jack Daniel's or anything except the play I wrote back in primary school, sure there's no real moral argument for my actions. But, let's face the truth for a moment, it's fun and on some level it feels like you're getting even for some crime you can't even name.

The RIAA are scared, they can't prevent P2P filesharing and that good ol' greed that drives the real core of the human heart has surfaced to take advantage of that.

God bless you, Internet.

P.S. I love that advertisement, it reminds me of the "Kill your speed" advert that actually caused me to drive with even more manic glee. Also, it's good to see the RIAA never prosecutes anyone fat or particularly ugly.

[Johnny Yesno]

Why aren't the fat social pariahs as well?

Well I eat my pies outside in case anyone yawning nearby gets my crumbs in their mouth.

[european son]

concerning smoking and legislation.

as far as i'm aware the bans on smoking in pubs/clubs being muted are sneakily been introduced to "protect the people working there".

this is bollocks. and sneaky to boot. if the governenment want to ban smoking in public places, go ahead. the deafening uproar of smokers and pub owners would soon change some minds.

the people working there have chosen to work in a pub/club, smokey places that have always been smokey.

to put out the music comparison, people choose to go to loud clubs, people choose to work there. if a pub/club wants to be non-smoking (as many reteraunts are), then go right ahead... i'm sure there's a market for that. but to enforce it on people is ridiculous,


waspy, there are more things to worry about in 5th ave than the smoke.... the bouncers are a bit heavy-handed and there're a touch too many wanky students and belligerent locals. i'll be in 42nd street friday night.... the building isn't as nice, but the tunes, people and ventilation are better.