Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Alas, poor spelling!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


               

indoor smoking

 Instead of forcing people to smoke outside, make them smoke indoors so we can filter the air!
  (+1, -8)(+1, -8)
(+1, -8) 		  [vote for,
against]

Ok, so in Washington State it is now illegal to smoke in business', or within 25 feet of airvents and doorways. In the city that basically means that you must smoke in the middle of the street.

People complain constantly about the dangers 'smoking has on the o-zone' (and always forget how many volcanoes exist naturally that we haven't made an effort to put out). Instead we should make it illegal to smoke outside, and requre all businesses that allow smoking to install a high grade air filtration system so that very little of the second hand smoke escapes into society.

—Juggalo4Eternity, Dec 24 2005

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       I've never heard anyone complaining about the dangers smoking has on the o-zone; probably because it's Green House gases and methane that have the biggest effect - smoking has almost none. [-]
—Mr Phase, Dec 24 2005
   

       Look at the help file, J4E. This comes under the heading of advocacy, and is what this site is not about. [marked-for-deletion]
—ldischler, Dec 24 2005
   

       I know smoking has none, other people don't... This is about the high grade filtration system in businesses and restaurants.
—Juggalo4Eternity, Dec 24 2005
   

       That already exists, so it’s hardly an invention. Anyway, it’s peripheral to the advocacy, as is obvious from the title and subtitle.
—ldischler, Dec 24 2005
   

       why .5%? I'd have thought the chances of getting run over were more than that.
—po, Dec 24 2005
   

       I disagree with ldischler - I don't think this is advocacy. (If it were advocacy, the poster would argue for increasing or lifting the ban on smoking; but they're merely inverting the details of a restriction.)
Stupid, yes, wrong, yes, on several levels [what Mr Phase wrote], but hey, look at the rest of this site.
—jutta, Dec 24 2005
   

       environmentally i would have thought smoking is carbon neutral since the plants have been grown by us.   

       aren't we trying to discourage smoking as well as protect the innocent?   

       am resisting with all my might against an advocacy joke that ends in 'butt plug'. possibly involving a volcano. sorry.
—rainbow, Dec 25 2005
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle