Jump to content

MisterIceTeaPeach

Member
  • Posts

    5,832
  • Joined

Posts posted by MisterIceTeaPeach

  1. I came to this song by accident. I watched an episode of Mario Party 1 by the RunawayGuys. One of them created a Mario Paint version of this, which was brilliant. So I listened to the originial, which is even more brilliant. It is a song, you can listen to in every phase in your life and this melody always makes you happy! Mr. Blue Sky is my favourite song at the moment!

  2. My main objection was the phrasing of your question; I would say the poll would have been better if it was something along the lines of

    [spoiler]What is your view on smoking?

    • Terrible; it should be banned.
    • "Allowable areas" should be restricted.
    • It's fine, it shouldn't be restricted in any way.
    • I have no opinion.

    No point in changing the poll now, though.

    Also tradition is a terrible reason to do anything, j/s. Arguments such as "oh but banning/heavily restricting it would be unfair to smokers" don't really help when smoking is fundamentally unfair to anyone around it.

    If you can have a way that ensures that non-smokers do not have to deal with second-hand smoke then fine, but I've not seen such a thing.

    I already said that a combination of making smoking cost-prohibitive and restricting "allowed" areas seems like a more workable solution than outright banning, though.

    Also also vaporizers look relatively promising (although I don't really know much about them).

    Thx, excellent idea! I will transfer it to a second poll in this topic!

  3. Whatever happens, I'd generally hope the aim includes rehabilitation for existing smokers and prevention. Ounce of prevention = pound of cure and all that, but I also think the smokers themselves shouldn't have to take more crap for basically having a disease (which somebody else is making a direct profit off of) than strictly necessary. I don't know the numbers on how well whatever kind of legislative approaches are known to address those problems, but in any case I think they should be thought of on at least the same level as is limiting second-hand smoke exposure.

    (background: sister used to smoke, tobacco-related shit got both my grandfathers before I met them, and when they were younger than my parents are now)

    Yes, this is absolue necessary!

    Not necessarily.

    now, if the question was "Should smoking be banned"

    then, "yes, definitely."

    I shouldn't have to go out of my way to avoid a cluster of smokers (like I do when walking to the bus stop) just so that I don't suddenly start wheezing my lungs out of my torso and onto the pavement.

    On a non-personal note, second-hand smoke is a huge issue, and I would definitely support a blanket ban on cigarettes just because of that alone. Not sure why there's a middle ground for "oh we'll just kill bystanders a little bit" - limiting it to homes doesn't actually help enough imo, because you're still shitting into the lungs of anyone you're living with.

    I am personally pretty happy with the laws we have here when I compare them to laws in other places, but I'd still rather they go further.

    #nobias

    (agreed with Rehab wrt rehabilitation though)

    I absolute understand your point and I have considered to pick this question as topic title. But I think it is impossible to ban smoking. This would not be fair to smokers, who respect non smokers. Smoking has a historical backround of more than 500 years and is an (although nasty) passion.

    Yes, this a problem, if non smokers live at home.

    Yes! They should ban cigarettes too. My dad smokes at least 30 cigarettes per day, at home, no less. And he cares for no one's health, even his family or himself.

    I know the problematic, if someone of the family is smoking. It is extremly nasty. And this was the perfect reason never to start it!

    But it is almost impossible to ban cigarettes, because they have historical tradition and it is a passion for many persons. The best way would be to raise the taxes to daunt smokers. They have to decide, if this passion really is it worth it.

    People shouldnt smooke in their own home unless there is no one else but them. That's all.

    Yeah, that is a huge problem, if children are at home and their parents smoke. This is how I am been asthmatic :dry:.

    I don't think people should be forbidden from smoking

    I don't think they should be allowed to smoke everywhere either. For me, the ideal situation would be "smoke areas" both outdoors and indoors, where people can smoke as much as they want, and that people who don't want to smell the smoke can stay completely away.

    My sister is asthmatic and I see how terrible cigarette smoke is for her. Thankfully not many people smoke here, and smoking is regulated (I spend weeks without seeing anyone smoking, even though I have friends who casually smoke and study in a big university) and she can avoid staying next to smokers. Still, I can only imagine how terrible it must be for an asthmatic who lives in a area with many smokers to have to smell cigarette smoke all the time. Smokers who blow their smoke on people's faces everywhere are just irresponsible.

    So, my opinion is that people should be allowed to smoked in some set "smoke areas" (and in their houses), but forbidden everywhere else.

    Smoking is a passion and has tradition, so it would not be fair and possible to abolish it. If smokers respect non smokers, it is fine.

    I am asthmatic, so I have problems to deal the smell of cigarettes smoke.

  4. I really doubt and to be honest I do not want to see a prequel or sequel of any released FE parts. Two parts took place in Akaneia, Jugdral, Elibe, Tellius, so it is enough. And Magvel does not need another part.

    I still think a "next generation" Tellius sequel could work with the kids of the FE10 cast. And Nico and Amy as Lords.

    And what could be the story?

  5. @MisterIceTeaPeach When I went to Germany I saw the packaging there. It's much better of an idea than Australia's packaging, and Capitalism wouldn't mind it very much.

    In general I doubt that shocking pictures or risks of health on cigarettes packages make a big impression on the smoker.

    The parents have to disabuse their children about the health risks of smoking. The countries spend way too much money for campaigns and "designing" cigarette packages.

  6. Also do like Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_cigarette_packaging

    That really doesn't work. When the plain packaging rule went into effect the shock value of the graphic images were minute, in the end all it did was cause certain brands to avoid selling their product in Australia.

    Smoking is generally banned in almost all indoor areas within Australia minus private houses, I believe this is a step in the right direction, as for being restricted to public areas, this is a very hard and costly thing to do. A few years ago there was a dispute between the state and a citizen over a fine for smoking in a park, it took over a year to settle it and wasted valuable resources (money and time) for both parties, I do not remember who won but the conclusion was that unless you have very specific and physically outlined rules, there will always be similar cases, wasting the governments time and money.

    Smoking should be heavily taxed as it already has been in Australia, driving prices up to around the 20 dollar mark has single handedly caused my dad to reduce his smoking habits.

    Many countries created some measures to protect non smokers.

    In Germany there are also hints on the cigarette packages like "smoking can be fatal" or "smoking causes lung cancer". But they are not as radical as in Australia. In restaurants smoking is banned. A few of restaurants have an exception permit. In some (central) stations there are non smoker areas.

    Raising the taxes is a good medium to equalize the issues for the information campaign and to daunt smokers.

    I'm a smoker myself and I like doing it outside, so my answer would be no. I do think people should at least consider their surroundings though. I think its perfectly okay to do so in a wide area, but I would never light one in a crowded area since that's kind of rude.

    Yes if smokers are considerated to non smokers, it is fair enough.

  7. Yes.

    We do need those Paper Mario characters.

    Pauline is a Donkey Kong character...not a Mario one.

    Toadette has a chance. We haven't had any of Princess Peach's loyal subjects as a playable character, but only an asset of one of Peach's moves before then.

    Maybe not.

    I am.

    I like the creativity of your suggestions, but to be honest these characters will not have any chance to be in SSB4!

    Like I said in a previous comment, there are too many copycats and characters from the "Mario series". I was even upset to see Rosalina in SSB4, because we have had already 4 Mario characters and Peach. Pauline has another problem that she only appeared in "Mario vs. DK", so she is not very famous.

    The movesets of the characters have be different. That´s the reason, why Lucas and Falco or Wolf should leave and Ganondorf (if he returns) has get a complety different moveset. He should get attacks with his sword.

  8. It is nice to see more trophies and Pit´s and Kirby´s final smash are improved. Kirby´s final smash is the ultra sword: HELL YES!!!

    I do not tend to buy a Wii U just because SSB4. The games do not interest me except for Pikmin 3 and SMTxFE. If the 3DS version will be a little worse, it would not a be big deal for me. Therefore I can get it earlier.

  9. Cigarettes are not only dangerous for smokers. Many passive smokers suffer from the same health implications like smokers. Headaches, sickness, asthma right up to lung cancer. About 600.000 people died of passive smoking every year. The smell of cigarettes smoke is a huge problem for non smokers especially on parties.

    So I would like to ask you, if smoking should only be legalized in special places (at home, in special pubs or sth. else.)?

×
×
  • Create New...