Normally they have a big vacuum that sucks it all out, very cold apparently too! I think he's basing his argument on private tenancy, where in s lot of cases says you can't smoke in the house. I assume council houses are different though as they don't pay a bond to rent the house, which in private housing they can keep some of it or all of it for breaking the tenancy agreement!
Time to tax? Prostitution and illegal drugs add £12.27bn to the economy http://www.theguardian.com/society/...n-and-illegal-drugs-add-1227bn-to-the-economy
I agree. I'd go further than cannabis as well and legalise LSD, MDMA, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, amphetamines, DMT etc. etc. If it's government regulated the purity will be high. Ron Paul gave an interview about it years ago and the whole point of liberty in the US constitution.
Was it Ron Paul that wrote the article suggesting drugs should be sold by the state? I read an article a bit back that made some interesting points. The argument was that it was the rubbish added to it by the pushers to make it go further that was causing the ill-health and drug raids only served to put the price up and increase crime, as junkies still needed it, so would have to steal more to fund it. I don't know enough about drugs to know how valid the points on its toxicity were.
It would not need government legislation, it would simply require that the local authority added it as a clause in the tenancy agreement. Not many people realise that there is a clause in many tenancy agreement banning the use of domestic calor gas heaters ..... but there is.....or banning keeping pets......I've even seen clauses banning keeping foul in gardens
It's keeping track of it though, if you don't get caught then no problem, if you only have 1 or 2 houses to overlook, but that many council houses would be just another way of fining people like speeding fines, except they'd probably cost more than they're worth!
Drug producing countries have very low drug related death rates, despite very heavy use, mainly due to its purity and consistency. They make up for it by having some of the highest murder rates, as they fight for control of the drug business itself.
Possibly. Drugs sold by the state would be as pure as the meth Walter White sells on Breaking Bad. The stuff dealers put into heroin, cocaine, MDMA etc. is probably more harmful to a person's health than the actual drugs themselves. Pure heroin is white and its cousin morphine is used in hospitals to alleviate extreme pain. You have to wonder what sort of crap dealers put in it so that it turns out brown and looks like the crushed up chocolate you get from goody stalls in Bransholme Centre and Hull Fair. Over-the-counter cocaine and heroin sold by chemists will probably never happen even in my lifetime. Legalised cannabis for medical and recreational use might. The state already provides opiates and stimulants very similar to heroin and cocaine.
It's not the smoke that lingers is it? It's the chemicals in the smoke that get into furniture, curtains, carpets etc that you can smell. Plus cig burns, nicotine stains and all the crap that comes with it. Who the hell would want to move into a house with all that? Scratch that, some people don't have a choice where they live, so how much of a selfish **** would you have to be to mistreat a house that isn't yours in the knowledge that some poor sod would have to occupy it after you? If you live in a council house, it isn't your house, ergo, you can't do what you want with it. Otherwise nobody would bother getting a mortgage and everybody would just get council housing. If they tell you not to smoke, then you shouldn't. I mean how hard is it to go outside? Council houses aren't that big anyway, it's not like you have to walk a mile to the backdoor.
A good job you weren't around a few decades ago. You would have got a clip round the ear and told not to be a silly boy. ****ing hell, 80% of people smoked in the 1940s (they are the ones living for record lengths of time who ate, according to all the experts, all the wrong food as well). I wasn't aware that people in council houses left behind all their furniture, curtains, carpets etc and the next people moving in used them. You used to go to the doctors and be faced with a doctor having a cigarette. I can recall the doctor on a home visit having a cigarette with my dad whilst discussing my tonsillitis. But we survived.
They probably wouldn't, unless they prioritise their drug habits over other things. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs etc. are all luxuries, not rights. That's why I don't understand the second amendment. A right to bear arms is a strange concept unless guns are provided by the state like healthcare. It should be a privilege to own a gun.
So who gives a **** about some dinosaur 1940's attitude? This is 2015, not 1915. We know now that smoking isn't good for us, but if people want to do it and makes them happy then fine. I'm not against smoking, I smoked until a couple of months ago. A council house isn't your property, so if they tell you not to smoke in it (and they will), then you shouldn't. The reasons should be obvious. People believed smoking was good for them because the government was able to make money out of people buying them. The laws on advertising were lax and therefore people lapped it up. You might've survived, but newer generations will live much, much longer because, ****, we're better than you. They reckon that the first person to live to 150 has already been born.
Hope that's not Allam, could be boss until the year 2100 then imagine another 85 years of his bullshit
Better? In which ways? A lot of the younger genetation are self-centred, clueless individuals. Though thry have a high opinion of themselves. The things you take for granted were made possible by older generstions who went without and better than you. The average age of a Spitfire pilot was 20. 20 year olds nowadays are described as youngsters and many aren't capable of boiling an egg. People aren't living longer. People lived to be 90 in the days of the Pharoahs. It is just that more people are living to those ages nowadays. Nobody believed smoking was good for them. They didn't realise how bad it was for them, which is a different thing. As a recenttly stopped smoker you are exhibiting the anti-smoking zeal which irritates smokers and non-smokers alike. I used to smoke but being of a better generation I am far more tolerant and not as priggish. Incidentally, the doctor who first published the link between smoking and cancer said the effects of sevond hand smoke were so negligible as to not warrant mention.
Choo talkin' bout Willis? I'm not anti smoking at all! I just don't think you should smoke in a house that doesn't belong to you. That's not anti smoking, it's anti-dickhead. I don't understand your struggle to comprehend that. Nobody is talking about second hand smoke, you've misread what I've said. I'm talking more about the aethsetics of a house rather than a chemical residue. I'd say a good percentage of people fighting overseas are between 18 and 25, which is roughly my generation.
