Cyprus-Forum.com

[kafenes]

:( I was sooooooooo enjoying the smoke-free zones!

And soon you will be enjoying alcohol-free zones cause before long you will be only allowed to consume at home and not in public.

[Tim Drayton]

The only issue that I have is with passive smoking. As one who has never smoked a single cigarette in my life, I object to having to inhale the foul-smelling, toxic fumes emitted by smokers. Is modern technology incapable of devising a cigarette that does not emit smoke when consumed? Then smokers can poison themselves to their hearts' content without casuing any annoyance or danger to non-smokers.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that passive smoking is dangerous to your health - only lies and spin from those we can supposedly trust...

And as Gasman points out, the same chemicals that are supposedly deadly in second-hand smoke are also in all sorts of other fire, BBQs, bonfires, etc. yet nobody complains about them...

Lastly, you should consider why the anti-smoking lobby wants to BAN 'electronic cigarettes', devices which emit only steam and can not possibly cause any 'annoyance or danger to non-smokers' while promoting the use of nicotine patches and gum.

Could it be that nicotine patches and gum are produced by Big Pharma - the paymasters of anti-smokers and e-fags are not...?

OK, live in denial if you like and pretend that cigarette smoke is not cancerogenic. The fact is that it smells obnoxious. This is something that smokers can never take on board because, spending all their lives with this stench up their throats, their senses have become deadened to it, so they don't realise the nauseous, gut-wrenching, disgusting smell that they are imposing on non-smokers who are forced to inhale this stuff. Nor do they ever seem to realise that this stench lingers for weeks and weeks, which is why most non-smokers strongly object to people smoking in their homes. It is not some kind of witchhunt - the smell of cigarette smoke to me is one of the most repugnant things there is. I am all for the development of some kind of device that will permit people to spend their lives in the thraldom of a plant to which they are addicted without causing a nuisance to others who do not wish to exist in this manner. I lead a very healthy lifestyle, but this is my personal choice, and I would never dream of trying to impose it on others. The world is overpopulated and if people chose of their own volition to shorten their lives so much the better!

[boomerang]

:( I was sooooooooo enjoying the smoke-free zones!

Then perhaps you should campaign for smokers and non-smokers to have their own areas... instead of applauding draconian laws which punish one side unfairly...

especially when the unfairly side contributes one helluva more than the other side...

[SSBubbles]

:( I was sooooooooo enjoying the smoke-free zones!

And soon you will be enjoying alcohol-free zones cause before long you will be only allowed to consume at home and not in public.

Ok

[cyprusgrump]

The only issue that I have is with passive smoking. As one who has never smoked a single cigarette in my life, I object to having to inhale the foul-smelling, toxic fumes emitted by smokers. Is modern technology incapable of devising a cigarette that does not emit smoke when consumed? Then smokers can poison themselves to their hearts' content without casuing any annoyance or danger to non-smokers.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that passive smoking is dangerous to your health - only lies and spin from those we can supposedly trust...

And as Gasman points out, the same chemicals that are supposedly deadly in second-hand smoke are also in all sorts of other fire, BBQs, bonfires, etc. yet nobody complains about them...

Lastly, you should consider why the anti-smoking lobby wants to BAN 'electronic cigarettes', devices which emit only steam and can not possibly cause any 'annoyance or danger to non-smokers' while promoting the use of nicotine patches and gum.

Could it be that nicotine patches and gum are produced by Big Pharma - the paymasters of anti-smokers and e-fags are not...?

OK, live in denial if you like and pretend that cigarette smoke is not cancerogenic. The fact is that it smells obnoxious. This is something that smokers can never take on board because, spending all their lives with this stench up their throats, their senses have become deadened to it, so they don't realise the nauseous, gut-wrenching, disgusting smell that they are imposing on non-smokers who are forced to inhale this stuff. Nor do they ever seem to realise that this stench lingers for weeks and weeks, which is why most non-smokers strongly object to people smoking in their homes. It is not some kind of witchhunt - the smell of cigarette smoke to me is one of the most repugnant things there is. I am all for the development of some kind of device that will permit people to spend their lives in the thraldom of a plant to which they are addicted without causing a nuisance to others who do not wish to exist in this manner. I lead a very healthy lifestyle, but this is my personal choice, and I would never dream of trying to impose it on others. The world is overpopulated and if people chose of their own volition to shorten their lives so much the better!

I'm not in denial...

All smokers are asking for (and I'm not a smoker by the was as I've said repeatedly and as many on this forum can confirm) is the right to choose...

The right to consume a legal substance.

The right to have smoking and non smoking restaurants and bars.

As these new draconian laws stand smokers can't even open smoking clubs or bars exclusive to smokers and staffed by smokers...

The law has never prevented anybody opening a non-smoking pub or restaurant (and many have succeeded) so why should smokers be denied the same right...?

[cyprusgrump]

(hello stranger - how are you today?)

I'm fine my dear although Mrs. Cyprusgrump has broken her leg and ankle... well, fractured really...

Do you think this nurses uniform makes my bum look big...?

[Tim Drayton]

The only issue that I have is with passive smoking. As one who has never smoked a single cigarette in my life, I object to having to inhale the foul-smelling, toxic fumes emitted by smokers. Is modern technology incapable of devising a cigarette that does not emit smoke when consumed? Then smokers can poison themselves to their hearts' content without casuing any annoyance or danger to non-smokers.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that passive smoking is dangerous to your health - only lies and spin from those we can supposedly trust...

And as Gasman points out, the same chemicals that are supposedly deadly in second-hand smoke are also in all sorts of other fire, BBQs, bonfires, etc. yet nobody complains about them...

Lastly, you should consider why the anti-smoking lobby wants to BAN 'electronic cigarettes', devices which emit only steam and can not possibly cause any 'annoyance or danger to non-smokers' while promoting the use of nicotine patches and gum.

Could it be that nicotine patches and gum are produced by Big Pharma - the paymasters of anti-smokers and e-fags are not...?

OK, live in denial if you like and pretend that cigarette smoke is not cancerogenic. The fact is that it smells obnoxious. This is something that smokers can never take on board because, spending all their lives with this stench up their throats, their senses have become deadened to it, so they don't realise the nauseous, gut-wrenching, disgusting smell that they are imposing on non-smokers who are forced to inhale this stuff. Nor do they ever seem to realise that this stench lingers for weeks and weeks, which is why most non-smokers strongly object to people smoking in their homes. It is not some kind of witchhunt - the smell of cigarette smoke to me is one of the most repugnant things there is. I am all for the development of some kind of device that will permit people to spend their lives in the thraldom of a plant to which they are addicted without causing a nuisance to others who do not wish to exist in this manner. I lead a very healthy lifestyle, but this is my personal choice, and I would never dream of trying to impose it on others. The world is overpopulated and if people chose of their own volition to shorten their lives so much the better!

I'm not in denial...

All smokers are asking for (and I'm not a smoker by the was as I've said repeatedly and as many on this forum can confirm) is the right to choose...

The right to consume a legal substance.

The right to have smoking and non smoking restaurants and bars.

As these new draconian laws stand smokers can't even open smoking clubs or bars exclusive to smokers and staffed by smokers...

The law has never prevented anybody opening a non-smoking pub or restaurant (and many have succeeded) so why should smokers be denied the same right...?

With you there all the way, mate. Live and let live is my motto. Just nobody come and tell me that I have to tolerate passive smoking or they will have touched a very raw nerve. I have long advocated the development of some kind of cigarette that produces no adverse health or sensory effect on those around the smoker. I am even against the spending of so much public money in the effort to stop people smoking. Faced with so much evidence, anybody who wishes to remain in denial is welcome to wallow in their ignorance, as far as I am concerned.

[Gasman]

Yes - the e-cig doesn't emit any smoke and they've helped hardened nicotine addicts give up. It is steam. But still people complain about them. Those who use them can carry a card to explain that it is not smoke and they are allowed in smoke free zones.

I can only imagine that the complainers are people who don't even want to see people looking like they are smoking.

[paliometoxo]

I hope they dont allow smoking again, though in clubs the owners dont care and tell people to smoke anyway, the government is doing it for the good of the people, smoke free areas is good. now at my university everyone is sat outside and the cafe is not one cloudy room of smoke where you cant see in front of yourself.

[miltiades]

The only issue that I have is with passive smoking. As one who has never smoked a single cigarette in my life, I object to having to inhale the foul-smelling, toxic fumes emitted by smokers. Is modern technology incapable of devising a cigarette that does not emit smoke when consumed? Then smokers can poison themselves to their hearts' content without casuing any annoyance or danger to non-smokers.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that passive smoking is dangerous to your health - only lies and spin from those we can supposedly trust...

And as Gasman points out, the same chemicals that are supposedly deadly in second-hand smoke are also in all sorts of other fire, BBQs, bonfires, etc. yet nobody complains about them...

Lastly, you should consider why the anti-smoking lobby wants to BAN 'electronic cigarettes', devices which emit only steam and can not possibly cause any 'annoyance or danger to non-smokers' while promoting the use of nicotine patches and gum.

Could it be that nicotine patches and gum are produced by Big Pharma - the paymasters of anti-smokers and e-fags are not...?

Cyprusgrump , dont talk shit .
PASSIVE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS.
You will soon be telling us that driving at 100 miles per hour on a byke is safe !!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 34025.html