allowed, but slated I see. Hardly aggressive though, just a stand point.
Your opinion may not be aggressive, but your manner of expressing it is. Plenty of people in this thread have argued the anti-smoking case strongly but without feeling the need to turn it into a direct confrontation. May I remind you that smoking itself is not illegal or immoral. You cannot say that one should show the habit NO respect without also saying that one should show those people who smoke NO respect.
Why aren't smokers made responsible for these things? You are now saying the public as a whole are responsible for providing ashtrays and smoking bins, and I presume the emptying of them regularly as well.
Sorry, but so far the only argument I see from smokers is that everyone owes them somewhere to carry on their habit, with all the utilities.
It is down to the smoker to carry on their habit without interfering with any other, not all others being there to accommodate.........
that isn't being aggressive, that is being reasonable.
There is no argument to smoke other than it is a habit. Kick it!!
So we who are going about our legal business should not expect the government (to whom we pay an awful lot of tax) to provide us with very basic amenities to properly do so. But every church and public park in my town has had forced upon them by the local council hideous large sharps bins so that those who congregate to take illegal substances are properly catered for and looked after.
There is no argument to take heroin other than it is a habit. What's more, it's ILLEGAL. It also has proven links to many other illegal activities such as assault, robbery and so on. Yet the public as a whole provide facilities for that, often against the will of those having the facilities forced upon them. But smoking, which is LEGAL, should apparently not be provided with any facilities at all; the inescapable conclusion is that smoking is worse than heroin.
Now Mr. Walton, would you care to justify that?