The down side of the smoking ban

[ZombieFriedNuts]

I’m sure you know in the summer that England went smoke free, I was all for it but now you get loads of the buggers hanging round the entrance to a building so you cant go in without getting a face full of smoke which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place.

[InsaneApache]

They should lock them up for 28 60 90 days without trial. :juggle2:

I went for a pint last week, first time since the ban came in, although I packed in 2 years ago all the guys I was with were sat outside puffing away, so I sat with them rather than be a 'Billy Nomates' inside. Christ it was bloody freezing! :no: :wall:

[TB666]

I’m sure you know in the summer that England went smoke free, I was all for it but now you get loads of the buggers hanging round the entrance to a building so you cant go in without getting a face full of smoke which is what they wanted to avoid in the first place.
Had the same problem in Sweden so they added in the entrance as well into the law.

[FactionHeir]

Had the same problem in Sweden so they added in the entrance as well into the law.

So they just went a few meters past the entrance to continue? :bounce:

[Papewaio]

Some areas its no smoking within 5 meters of an entrance or undercover... kind of limits the smoking area.

[InsaneApache]

Some areas its no smoking within 5 meters of an entrance or undercover... kind of limits the smoking area.

I believe the current Uk law is the same. Midst you, after pissing the guys off, would you want to move them on?

I bloody wouldn't. :no:

[lars573]

Some areas its no smoking within 5 meters of an entrance or undercover... kind of limits the smoking area.
Only 5? Here it's 10+ from any enterance.

[Papewaio]

And I bet there is a bylaw that emergency exits have to be every ten meters...

[lars573]

No. And the bylaw isn't really enforced either. :dizzy2:

[Papewaio]

I'm a 100% behind banning smoking in public places like hospitals and food halls and pubs for that matter.

What I'm against though is not treating the smokers as human beings. They are smokers and it does to a large extent rule their lives, but it doesn't define them to the point that they should be treated like pedophiles (well maybe if they were treated by JAG... a nice cup of tea and a talk it would be okay).

I'm sure one day people will look back and go... look at those stupid romans using lead as a sweetener and look at those stupid 20th century apes and their stupid nicotine delivery systems.

[Proletariat]

Give it a couple years, the cities and their bars will adapt and accomodate smokers like they have in San Fran, Sydney and NYC. You almost don't notice the bans in these places I've been since even when you're outside smoking in the winter your usually under some massive heat fan with comfy chairs underneath (take that, ozone!). That or they just cut out a bit of the patio roof, wall it up and claim that's the same as being outside.

~:smoking: :2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

Give it a couple years, the cities and their bars will adapt and accomodate smokers like they have in San Fran, Sydney and NYC. You almost don't notice the bans in these places I've been since even when you're outside smoking in the winter your usually under some massive heat fan with comfy chairs underneath (take that, ozone!). That or they just cut out a bit of the patio roof, wall it up and claim that's the same as being outside.

Heat fanned patios are getting popular in European countries too (not in the Netherlands, since smoking isn't banned in bars and the likes yet)
I think it was in Germany, somebody decided to "calculate" the annual CO2 output of these fanned patios and then demanded that the government would do something about it :wall:

[English assassin]

I went for a pint last week, first time since the ban came in, although I packed in 2 years ago all the guys I was with were sat outside puffing away, so I sat with them rather than be a 'Billy Nomates' inside. Christ it was bloody freezing! :no: :wall:

Plus most of the fun women smoke*, so if you stay inside you are in a target poor; self righteous lentil-muncher rich environment. I'm glad I'm married, young lads up and down the country are going to have to take up smoking en masse if they want any action now.


*no offence intended to any non-smoking but also fun women reading this.

[Husar]

I'm afraid EA is right.
Don't think I'll start smoking myself but I might have to get used to passive smoking.
Of course it's not a big deal anyway if enough alcohol is involved.
I need to go back in my life and find the place where I lost my militant antismoker opinion. :help:

I think it has to be somewhere under a big pile of love.

[monkian]

The two worst things about the smoking ban -

1) Not being able to skin up and smoke a fat doobie at undercover music events :wall:

2) The horrible stench of beer,sweat and farts in clubs that were previously covered by smoke :thumbsdown:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bah, smoking bans. Over here too, started this year, and the ban will be completed by 2008.

This is why smokers die younger! Stress from this constant harrasment, from being fiscally plundered, from being chased outside in the cold all the time. ~:mecry:

The evil Germans even forced Zidane and the rest of the French team outside for their calming coffee and smoke breaks!! The stress this causes to the French mind costed us the World Cup! :furious3:

https://img67.imageshack.us/img67/5458/zidanefumeia5.jpg

[Husar]

It's quite telling when your football team would rather smoke than win the World Cup. ~;p

[lars573]

I just heard on the radio today that a town here in Nova Scotia is set to enact a by-law banning smoking in cars when there are persons under 18 riding along.

[CountArach]

I just heard on the radio today that a town here in Nova Scotia is set to enact a by-law banning smoking in cars when there are persons under 18 riding along.
It seems sensible to me. Children should not be forced to sit there and breathe in second hand smoke which may well give them Lung Cancer. Why should they pay for someone else's mistakes?

[Viking]

Not like if I care about pubs....but if I'm waiting at the bus...may they suffer from lung cancer. ~:smoking:

[Andres]

I went for a pint last week, first time since the ban came in, although I packed in 2 years ago all the guys I was with were sat outside puffing away, so I sat with them rather than be a 'Billy Nomates' inside. Christ it was bloody freezing!

A pint you said? A pint of beer? :inquisitive:

Mister, are you aware of the dangers of alcohol? Are you?

How about a drinking ban in pubs?

And with all the unhealthy food and fat nowadays, how about an eating ban in restaurants?

TEH BAN ! TEH BAN !

:creep:

[KukriKhan]

I just heard on the radio today that a town here in Nova Scotia is set to enact a by-law banning smoking in cars when there are persons under 18 riding along.

Similar ordinance here failed in referendum, along with one banning smoking in dwellings with shared walls (apartments, condos, etc.). I hear/read that the measures will be voted on again next year, though.


I think it was in Germany, somebody decided to "calculate" the annual CO2 output of these fanned patios ...

I hadn't thought of that. I wonder how long before our tree-hugging non-smokers play that 'green' card. Our local beer & booze distributors are helping pub owners construct those fanned/heated patios (they can 'brand' the umbrellas, heaters and fans to defray the cost - the hard part is paying the city the extra "seat tax" - so many joints are making the patios Standing Room Only).

[Husar]

If it's legal to smoke in public and annoy other people whose noses might be sensible to the smell, shouldn't it also be legal to throw a teargas grenade into a bunch of smokers? I mean it's just a bit of smoke, innit? Doesn't kill you or so. :sweatdrop:
And my the attitude would be about the same as Viking's.

[Justiciar]

Bloody nanny-state nonsense s'what it is. :furious3:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

If it's legal to smoke in public and annoy other people whose noses might be sensible to the smell, shouldn't it also be legal to throw a teargas grenade into a bunch of smokers? I mean it's just a bit of smoke, innit? Doesn't kill you or so. :sweatdrop:
And my the attitude would be about the same as Viking's.
Reminds me of a john cleese quote when asked if he minded if someone smokes, no, do you mind if i fart?

[lars573]

Similar ordinance here failed in referendum, along with one banning smoking in dwellings with shared walls (apartments, condos, etc.). I hear/read that the measures will be voted on again next year, though.
Well it more than likely passed 7-0 like the Mayor though it would. And will come into effect next year sometime. Probably April 1.

[KukriKhan]

Well it more than likely passed 7-0 like the Mayor though it would. And will come into effect next year sometime. Probably April 1.

You mean in Halifax, or Escondido?

[lars573]

Wolfville. I just heard another report about it today. And their Mayor is very confident that it will pass. (the vote is still upcoming) It also appears to be the first law of it's kind anywhere.

[Xiahou]

It seems sensible to me. Children should not be forced to sit there and breathe in second hand smoke which may well give them Lung Cancer. Why should they pay for someone else's mistakes?
They should also ban candy, pastries, video games and television in households with someone under 18 living there. All of those certainly do more harm to children than a little second hand smoke. :yes:

[CountArach]

They should also ban candy, pastries, video games and television in households with someone under 18 living there. All of those certainly do more harm to children than a little second hand smoke. :yes:
No so. Video games and Television have been proven to broaden the mind and improve the imagination. As to the candy and pastries, Parents should be keeping excess ammounts of these from their children in the first place, much like they should be with cigarettes.

[Ice]

They should also ban candy, pastries, video games and television in households with someone under 18 living there. All of those certainly do more harm to children than a little second hand smoke. :yes:

Did you just compare watching tv or playing a video game to involuntarily breathing in second hand smoke?

:yes:

[Xiahou]

Did you just compare watching tv or playing a video game to involuntarily breathing in second hand smoke?

:yes:I'm saying that the long-term effects of being a junk food munching, cola couch potato are going to be substantially worse for a child than second hand smoke.


As to the candy and pastries, Parents should be keeping excess ammounts of these from their children in the first place, much like they should be with cigarettes.I agree. The question becomes, then, should the government be who determines what good parenting practices are? Should the government legally mandate how much candy a parent can give a child, how much time they can spend sitting in front of the TV or how close to them a parent can stand when smoking a cigarette? Do we really want to go down that road?

I don't like cigarette smoke and think it's irresponsible for a parent to regularly be blowing smoke in their children's faces. But I also think it's irresponsible for parents to let their children grow up to be fat lazy turds. People just happen to be on about smoking because it's the current cause celebre. :shrug:

[Papewaio]

I think there is a huge difference between voluntary ingesting something and having no choice in the matter.

If an individual chooses to eat 3 large pizzas I would not like to have to have a pizza as well just because I was 'down wind' of him.

[Xiahou]

I think there is a huge difference between voluntary ingesting something and having no choice in the matter.
I dont think so. We're talking about children here. If their parents keep the cupboards crammed full of junk food and allow their children to sit around all day chowing down on it, they will almost inevitably do so. Most children aren't informed enough to make smart decisions when it comes to nutrition and exercise- their parents need to instill them with healthy habits.

On the other hand, if you're talking about adults, you have a choice about what you want to eat and if you want to exercise. You also have a choice about whether you want to associate with or otherwise be around smokers.

[Viking]

Gah! There is no need to expose children for more unhealthy substances than what is necessary. We're talking about the brain dead activity called smoking, not the two-edged issue called TV. Nor was this thread about junkfood. Gah!

[Husar]

You also have a choice about whether you want to associate with or otherwise be around smokers.
That's harsh. :sweatdrop:
Sounds even worse than dumping good friends over politics.

But then if you walk around in the city or sit in a cafe you cannot always choose who smokes around you anyway.

I should get a skunk as a pet. :idea2:

[Reverend Joe]

Gah! There is no need to expose children for more unhealthy substances than what is necessary. We're talking about the brain dead activity called smoking, not the two-edged issue called TV. Nor was this thread about junkfood. Gah!
TV is a one-edged issue, and so is the computer. Neither will do any good in the long run, and both promote the child to waste away his/her life in front of a screen. As for junkfood... same basic problem.

I refuse to believe that there can be any merit in allowing unfettered access to any of these things. If a parent is responsible, they will make sure that their child(ren) get outside and interact with other children a lot, and eat a healthy diet; as for smoking, just do it away from the kid(s.) HOWEVER: if a parent does not have the common sense to at least try to do a halfway-decent job, then that is the family's problem, nobody else's, so Uncle Sam, the Moral Majority, the anti-smoking fascista and everyone else can kindly :furious3: off.

[Papewaio]

Then don't expect everyone else to pay for health, welfare and schooling... the social contract is not a one way street for the me me me generation.

[Slug For A Butt]

And also retard their intersocial skills which are underdeveloped because they spend all day sat on their own in front of the telly.

But back on topic. I'm one of the "buggers" that smokes and visits my local pub on a regular basis (until now it's got cold).
I'm one of the "buggers" that pays an inordinate amount of tax on my cigarettes that pays for NHS treatment of smoking related diseases many many times over (even ASH don't deny this). You want to ban smoking and pay 3p on the pound more in income tax to make up for the revenue loss? Deafening silence
I'm one of the buggers that believes pubs are a place that serve alcohol and therefore are NOT family places in the first place, so sod the lot of them and let them go to a park like my family used to.
I'm one of the "buggers" that is being treated like a pariah for doing something that is completely legal and that my government condones by taxing the cigarettes that are sold to me.
I'm one of the "buggers" that doesn't want to see groups of drunken lads outside pubs intimidating and abusing passing people just because they happen to be out there to have a cigarette. I see this happen all the time.
I'm one of the "buggers" that would appreciate being able to have a cigarette at the end of the bar in a pub if I was working the bar because bar staff don't get breaks but most of them smoke.
I'm one of the "buggers" that is sick and tired of what is rapidly becoming a fascist state influenced by fascist, one agenda lobby groups.

Etc etc...

Unfortunately, a lot of pubs are going to close this winter I feel because smokers (who make the majority of regular patrons in the North of England) will not want to sit outside in temperatures of -20,000 degrees to have a cigarette. Thus all the do-good lobby group types won't actually have a pub to visit on their once monthly outing with little baby Tarquin.
And to top it all, I have heard non smokers bitching about people sitting outside the pub smoking when the weather is nice because they want to sit there... :furious3: Make your mind up, you want us in in the good weather and out in the bad???????

But let's at least look at the upside of smoking. It makes you look hard and attractive to women obviously.
~;)


You also have a choice about whether you want to associate with or otherwise be around smokers.

Are you for real? That is the most brain dead argument I have heard in this thread. You would choose your friends based on whether they smoke or not? Wow! You need to get some living under your belt.

[Papewaio]

Legal does not equal nice/ethical or smart.



Unfortunately, a lot of pubs are going to close this winter I feel because smokers (who make the majority of regular patrons in the North of England) will not want to sit outside in temperatures of -20,000 degrees to have a cigarette. Thus all the do-good lobby group types won't actually have a pub to visit on their once monthly outing with little baby Tarquin.


Most cities that have these laws have increased patronage at bars.



And to top it all, I have heard non smokers bitching about people sitting outside the pub smoking when the weather is nice because they want to sit there... :furious3: Make your mind up, you want us in in the good weather and out in the bad???????

Cue violins.



But let's at least look at the upside of smoking. It makes you look hard and attractive to women obviously.
~;)


:laugh4:

[Viking]

TV is a one-edged issue, and so is the computer. Neither will do any good in the long run,

Like sitting all day at school does any good [to your health], though it's not like it cannot be countered.


the anti-smoking fascista


Who are the ones with fascistic behaviour imposing their lifestyles upon others without any sort of democracy? :tomato:

[Justiciar]

Who are the ones with fascistic behaviour imposing their lifestyles upon others without any sort of democracy?
That would be the goose-stepping holier-than-thou ejits with the clean lungs and spare change.

[Viking]

That would be the goose-stepping holier-than-thou ejits with the clean lungs and spare change.

Oh the irony.

[Goofball]

I'm saying that the long-term effects of being a junk food munching, cola couch potato are going to be substantially worse for a child than second hand smoke.

How about the long term effects of second-hand marijuana smoke? Why should the government be able to mandate to me whether or not I can smoke marijuana in my own home, while my kids are sitting beside me on the couch?

[Justiciar]

Oh the irony.
That was the point, m'boy. Anyhow you can't really call smokers fascists - last I checked there aren't laws forcing all none-smokers to stand outside while all goodly and just folk light up. I don't even know why I'm complaining, to be honest. I acctually support the smoking ban to some extent. :dizzy2: I just think it could make room to accomodate smokers, rather than just brushing them under the carpet.

[Viking]

That was the point, m'boy. Anyhow you can't really call smokers fascists - last I checked there aren't laws forcing all none-smokers to stand outside while all goodly and just folk light up. I don't even know why I'm complaining, to be honest. I acctually support the smoking ban to some extent. :dizzy2: I just think it could make room to accomodate smokers, rather than just brushing them under the carpet.

It was Reverend that brought facism in, it just makes me sick that people can connect non-smokers with the bad guys in general. Ultimately, only the smokers are forcing things upon others as well as themselves.

[Craterus]

The only downside I can see is less stupid people killing themselves.

[Justiciar]

Ultimately, only the smokers are forcing things upon others as well as themselves.
That's balls and you know it, man.

[Papewaio]

How? If I eat to excess I'm the only one who eats to excess.

If someone smokes near me, both of us end up inhaling.

So how is the smoker not forcing their choices onto others?

[Louis VI the Fat]

the anti-smoking fascista Count on the French resistance! Today, 10000 marched at the command of General des Gauloises:



PARIS – Some 10,000 people, mainly tobacco sellers, marched through Paris on Wednesday to protest a smoking ban in French cafes as of Jan. 1.

The demonstrators want a modification to the decree banning their Gitanes, Gauloises and other brands of tobacco in all cafes, restaurants and nightclubs at the start of 2008 so that smoking rooms with ventilation can be set up in the establishments.


https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5199/fumerlw7.jpg

[Slug For A Butt]

Legal does not equal nice/ethical or smart.

No, but legal means legal pure and simple. And until it becomes illegal (which bizarrely I wouldn't have a problem with) I surely have as many rights as non smokers? I don't think that people that drive 4*4's in town are nice, but I dont want to ban them, they pay enough in fuel tax and car tax etc to be able to do it. This is supposed to be a free society after all.




Most cities that have these laws have increased patronage at bars.

You obviously don't live in England. And show me the facts if you can because I don't believe you.




Cue violins.


Typical non smokers hypocrisy. Imagine me sitting next to a non smoker and blowing smoke in their face intentionally (outside obviously). When they complain I could say the same as you did. But I wouldn't do that because I respect other people's rights, unlike you. And until it becomes illegal (which you won't want for financial reasons) just respect my rights instead of acting like fascist, chip on shoulder, society police.




:laugh4: ~:rolleyes: You obviously don't have a sense of humour, that was a joke...


The only downside I can see is less stupid people killing themselves.


And Craterus, I'm far from stupid. It's my choice, I enjoy it and I know the risks. Luckily I'm putting enough in the pot by paying the outrageous taxes imposed on cigarettes to justify my treatment many times over. Hell, I'm paying for peoples IVF too...

[Kralizec]

How? If I eat to excess I'm the only one who eats to excess.

If someone smokes near me, both of us end up inhaling.

So how is the smoker not forcing their choices onto others?

That's a matter of courtesy. If I'm unsure of my company, I always inquire if they're okay with me smoking. I don't smoke when near children, either. The only places where I don't pay attention to non-smokers' sensibilities is bars or clubs, since those are private establishments where the owner allows me the liberty of smoking.


Most cities that have these laws have increased patronage at bars.

I don't buy this one. If that were the case we'd see a lot more bar owners banning smoke in their establishments. Even if it's true for Australia that doesn't mean that the same would happen here, since the Netherlands has more smokers per capita (almost half the population)

[R'as al Ghul]

Not like if I care about pubs....but if I'm waiting at the bus...may they suffer from lung cancer. ~:smoking:

So while you're waiting for the bus and happily breathe respirable dust from all those cars and busses you think that a cigarette smoked open air will seriously harm you? :dizzy2:
You're like the grandma that starts coughing when I light up 10 meters away from her at the busstop. She doesn't mind waiting at the street but takes the liberty to show offense when I start smoking.


If it's legal to smoke in public and annoy other people whose noses might be sensible to the smell, shouldn't it also be legal to throw a teargas grenade into a bunch of smokers? I mean it's just a bit of smoke, innit? Doesn't kill you or so. :sweatdrop:
And my the attitude would be about the same as Viking's.

Essen is Germany's respirable dust capital. You've bigger problems than smokers. Besides if it's about annoying people with smells than we need to do something about the sweat, urine, garlic and perfume reek and stench that I need to wade through every day when using the public transport system.
If that stench is legal than I don't know what the problem with cigarettes is. :laugh4:

The anti-smokers who are patting themselves on their backs for saving us demented and sick buggers should think about teh ban in terms of privacy rights being taken away and how this development could affect themselves in the future.
I've heard about a new law in California that prohibits smoking in my own house if I share a wall with another house. That's about as stupid as the prohibition to be naked in your own house as in Singapore.

[Viking]

So while you're waiting for the bus and happily breathe respirable dust from all those cars and busses you think that a cigarette smoked open air will seriously harm you? :dizzy2:
You're like the grandma that starts coughing when I light up 10 meters away from her at the busstop. She doesn't mind waiting at the street but takes the liberty to show offense when I start smoking.

I do not live in a city. And why the heck would you want to make the air even worse than it alredy is? Cigarette smoke has little effect on the over-all air quality in a city, but when you stand next to a smoker you breath in the same amount of smoke that of quite a few cars passing by (the amount is of course as relevant as the Indian corn price).



Essen is Germany's respirable dust capital. You've bigger problems than smokers. Besides if it's about annoying people with smells than we need to do something about the sweat, urine, garlic and perfume reek and stench that I need to wade through every day when using the public transport system.
If that stench is legal than I don't know what the problem with cigarettes is. :laugh4:

Again why do you want to make a bad air-quality even worse? That's the way to go. ~:wacko:


The anti-smokers who are patting themselves on their backs for saving us demented and sick buggers should think about teh ban in terms of privacy rights being taken away and how this development could affect themselves in the future.
I've heard about a new law in California that prohibits smoking in my own house if I share a wall with another house. That's about as stupid as the prohibition to be naked in your own house as in Singapore.

The case you defend is so weak that you need to set up a straw man.
No one in this thread has defended such laws anyway. :drama2:

[R'as al Ghul]

I do not live in a city. And why the heck would you want to make the air even worse than it alredy is? Cigarette smoke has little effect on the over-all air quality in a city, but when you stand next to a smoker you breath in the same amount of smoke that of quite a few cars passing by (the amount is of course as relevant as the Indian corn price).
Now, what's your opinion that cigarette smoke has little effect, that it does make the air even worse or that it is even equal to the exhaustion of several cars? ~:wacko:
My point is that as long as you don't shake your fist at the cars you can hardly complain about open-air cigarettes. Respirable dust from car exhaustion is worse than second-hand cigarette smoke open air. Oh, and you always have the possibility to walk a few meters away (if the smoker even did light up right beside you) or to ask him to move away or to talk to him about your concerns. Smokers can be reasonable people.


The case you defend is so weak that you need to set up a straw man. No one in this thread has defended such laws anyway. :drama2:

How's voicing a concern about a trend in legislation a straw man?
Inmo, the hysteria of the anti-smoker crowd is quite a :drama2:
You have your ban and now you complain that we still smoke in places where it's not yet forbidden.

[Viking]

Now, what's your opinion that cigarette smoke has little effect, that it does make the air even worse or that it is even equal to the exhaustion of several cars? ~:wacko:
My point is that as long as you don't shake your fist at the cars you can hardly complain about open-air cigarettes. Respirable dust from car exhaustion is worse than second-hand cigarette smoke open air. Oh, and you always have the possibility to walk a few meters away (if the smoker even did light up right beside you) or to ask him to move away or to talk to him about your concerns. Smokers can be reasonable people.

Now, getting rid of cars might turn out a little harder than to get smokers off their arrogant throne. There is little reason why I should have to walk away; why someone should start smoking in public with other people present. Sure I might sound like I mean smokers are the end of the world, but rather I'm annoyed by having to breath in other peoples' toxic exhausts.




How's voicing a concern about a trend in legislation a straw man?
Inmo, the hysteria of the anti-smoker crowd is quite a :drama2:
You have your ban and now you complain that we still smoke in places where it's not yet forbidden.

I see no such trend; neither of us live in Singapore or Cali.

[Justiciar]

So how is the smoker not forcing their choices onto others?
I didn't say that. Rather I was stating that to claim smokers are the only people "forcing" something upon others is an evident falsehood. There aren't laws forcing you, against your will, to stand outside while all right thinking, and goodly folk light up. For example.

[Slug For A Butt]

Now, getting rid of cars might turn out a little harder than to get smokers off their arrogant throne. There is little reason why I should have to walk away; why someone should start smoking in public with other people present. Sure I might sound like I mean smokers are the end of the world, but rather I'm annoyed by having to breath in other peoples' toxic exhausts.



Then why aren't lobby groups campaigning for smoking to be made completely illegal? Sense would dictate that is what they would do, but no... lets just make people practising something that IS LEGAL do it down a dark alley because they are worthless to society. :laugh4: Then we can still enjoy the tax benefits that come from selling cigarettes... H,,, I sniff hypocrisy.
And Viking, you don't have to breathe these people's foul smoke, but you should walk away because they are completely entitled to smoke next to you, people like you will want to ban farting next because you don't like the smell. Or do you want to ban people talking politics that you don't agree with when they are near you because it offends you?
People should just get on with life and put up with the things they find annoying rather than trying to tailor the world to their Utopian ideal that doesn't fit everyone else.
LOL, you talk about arrogant smokers... there is nothing that is more arrogant and in your face than a pollution belching 4x4 in a city, but I guess we wont talk about cars as you are/aspire to be a driver. Sanctimonious bullshit is all this thread is. Most peaople here are killing me with their unneccessary emissions, but thats ok because we ALL have a vested interest there. Smokers are easy targets.

[Viking]

Then why aren't lobby groups campaigning for smoking to be made completely illegal? Sense would dictate that is what they would do, but no... lets just make people practising something that IS LEGAL do it down a dark alley because they are worthless to society. :laugh4: Then we can still enjoy the tax benefits that come from selling cigarettes... H,,, I sniff hypocrisy.
And Viking, you don't have to breathe these people's foul smoke, but you should walk away because they are completely entitled to smoke next to you, fascists like you will want to ban farting next because you don't like the smell. Or do you want to ban people talking politics that you don't agree with when they are near you because it offends you?
People should just get on with life and put up with the things they find annoying rather than trying to tailor the world to their Utopian ideal that doesn't fit everyone else.
LOL, you talk about arrogant smokers... there is nothing that is more arrogant and in your face than a pollution belching 4x4 in a city, but I guess we wont talk about cars as you are/aspire to be a driver. Sanctimonious bullshit is all this thread is. Most peaople here are killing me with their unneccessary emissions, but thats ok because we ALL have a vested interest there. Smokers are easy targets.

The smoke is toxic; but of course, dragging completely irrelevant topics into the debate surely strengthens your case, yes?
Fascism? Next it will be prohibited to spit at other people, outrageous!

Cars, unlike a cigarettes, serve a purpose. Whether 4x4 is necessary or not, it does not explain why I should be poisoned more than necessary. Good logic. :clown:


Edit:


I didn't say that. Rather I was stating that to claim smokers are the only people "forcing" something upon others is an evident falsehood. There aren't laws forcing you, against your will, to stand outside while all right thinking, and goodly folk light up. For example.

There are no laws forcing anyone outdoor as far as I know. There is, however, a law that prohibits smoking at bars.

[Slug For A Butt]

Cars, unlike a cigarettes, serve a purpose. Whether 4x4 is necessary or not, it does not explain why I should be poisoned more than necessary. Good logic. :clown:

Cigarettes serve a purpose in the same way that alcohol serves a purpose.. Would you support a return of alcohol prohibition? That is also a health issue, but I suppose you are happy enough to indulge in this at times. I'm trying to make the hypocrisy clear, that's all. And as I already stated I wouldn't have a problem with cigarettes being made illegal, it's the hypocrisy here that makes me angry.





There are no laws forcing anyone outdoor as far as I know. There is, however, a law that prohibits smoking at bars.

There is, however, a law that prohibits smoking IN bars.
Hence forcing smokers outside. When you come down off your pedastal and remove those rose tinted spectacles and spend some time in these establishments, you will see this for yourself. Theory is one thing, actualities are another.




Most cities that have these laws have increased patronage at bars.



I'm still waiting for the proof of this astonishing statement.
Or could it be that it was a knowingly unfounded statement that was made as fact?
Obviously, if it was going to boost trade, bar owners would have voluntarily brought this in years ago. It was actually tried by a few landlords in England a few years back who did a quick U turn when their patrons drank elsewhere. Hmm, wonder why...

[Viking]

Cigarettes serve a purpose in the same way that alcohol serves a purpose.. Would you support a return of alcohol prohibition? That is also a health issue, but I suppose you are happy enough to indulge in this at times. I'm trying to make the hypocrisy clear, that's all. And as I already stated I wouldn't have a problem with cigarettes being made illegal, it's the hypocrisy here that makes me angry.


You can only drink yourself to bad health, not others. Would banning alcohol lead to less damage of people that are not intoxicated? Maybe a few car accidents could be avoided; but despite drugs being banned we still see car accidents caused by people being under influence.





There is, however, a law that prohibits smoking IN bars.
Hence forcing smokers outside. When you come down off your pedastal and remove those rose tinted spectacles and spend some time in these establishments, you will see this for yourself. Theory is one thing, actualities are another.

One will have to go outside if one want to ruin ones health; so one does not ruin other's at the same time. You have the choice to smoke or not, it is up to you. There is no reason why som peoples addiction should bring bad health to others.

[Slug For A Butt]

You can only drink yourself to bad health, not others. Would banning alcohol lead to less damage of people that are not intoxicated? Maybe a few car accidents could be avoided; but despite drugs being banned we still see car accidents caused by people being under influence.

Car accidents??? :dizzy2:
I was thinking more in terms of the people's health who are abused and attacked by drunkards which isn't rare, domestic abuse that is perpetuated by people who have indulged, the fear that results from gangs of children boozed up to the eyeballs roaming the streets looking for trouble etc...







One will have to go outside if one want to ruin ones health; so one does not ruin other's at the same time. You have the choice to smoke or not, it is up to you. There is no reason why som peoples addiction should bring bad health to others.

You would have the option of choosing a non smoking bar to sit and moralise in while leaving us foul rejects of society to kill ourselves in pro smoking bars if there was enough support for non smoking bars from patrons to make it something that was financially viable in the first place (it would have been a choice for the bar owner).
The fact that this has had to be forced through by law against the wills of the majority of patrons just shows how deeply insensitive this law is to the people it affects.
It's easy to sit at home in front of your PC with a glass of milk and moralise about things that don't directly affect you (you can't even legally drink yet, so what the hell business is it of yours?). Just wait for the lobby groups to come after you for using your domestic PC too much, citing poor social skills, obesity and unneccessary energy usage as jolly good reasons to force you to use it for 10 minutes a day. They would see themselves as morally correct, but how would you feel then?:inquisitive:
It's fine to jump on the coat tails of the inquisition until it comes for you.

[Viking]

Car accidents??? :dizzy2:
I was thinking more in terms of the people's health who are abused and attacked by drunkards which isn't rare, domestic abuse that is perpetuated by people who have indulged, the fear that results from gangs of children boozed up to the eyeballs roaming the streets looking for trouble etc...

I was thinking if the attacked people happened to also be at the bar or also drunk; I realize that it doesn't have to be that way. But these drinkers could get there alcohol from somewhere else than from the stores.



You would have the option of choosing a non smoking bar to sit and moralise in while leaving us foul rejects of society to kill ourselves in pro smoking bars if there was enough support for non smoking bars from patrons to make it something that was financially viable in the first place (it would have been a choice for the bar owner).
The fact that this has had to be forced through by law against the wills of the majority of patrons just shows how deeply insensitive this law is to the people it affects.
It's easy to sit at home in front of your PC with a glass of milk and moralise about things that don't directly affect you (you can't even legally drink yet, so what the hell business is it of yours?).

I already stated rather early in this thread that I do not personally care about bars; I've merely been defending the logic of this ban. One of the reasons for this ban, for instance, was the health of the workers at the bars, who has to breath in quite an amount of smoke.


Just wait for the lobby groups to come after you for using your domestic PC too much, citing poor social skills, obesity and unneccessary energy usage as jolly good reasons to force you to use it for 10 minutes a day. They would see themselves as morally correct, but how would you feel then?:inquisitive:
It's fine to jump on the coat tails of the inquisition until it comes for you.


My PC use does not affect anyone else. I have NOT suggested that cigarettes or smoking should be banned. If you smoke somewhere I am not, how could I possibly care? Setting up a strawman, huh?

[Slug For A Butt]

I was thinking if the attacked people happened to also be at the bar or also drunk; I realize that it doesn't have to be that way. But these drinkers could get there alcohol from somewhere else than from the stores.

The problem is that you weren't thinking. Were any of my examples citing victims that were drunk? No.





I already stated rather early in this thread that I do not personally care about bars; I've merely been defending the logic of this ban. One of the reasons for this ban, for instance, was the health of the workers at the bars, who has to breath in quite an amount of smoke.

Why do you state that you personally don't care about bars and then use them as an example? :inquisitive: Sounds like a one trick pony argument that has been exposed. Also, most people in my area that work these bars are smokers and don't get breaks (they traditionally have a cig going at the end of the bar inbetween serving patrons). How is this fair on them? Kind of turns your argument into a farce, tell me different when you know better.





My PC use does not affect anyone else. I have NOT suggested that cigarettes or smoking should be banned. If you smoke somewhere I am not, how could I possibly care? Setting up a strawman, huh?

Now, maybe I set a trap here :shame: . But you have given me exactly the answer I expected and wanted. These lobby groups would put you straight in the same pigeon hole that you now put me in. Think about it, I gave them citing obesity (drain on health funding), lack of social skills (bad for society as a whole) and power usage (you want the planet to burn?) as examples and you have tried to tell us that these are non of our business because it suits you now. How is that different from my case?

GET OFF THE BANDWAGON! At least until you have experience of the situation.

EDIT: Well done for learning what a strawman is, you have my congratulations. Just please use it where it is apposite, not where you think it will score you points.

[Viking]

The problem is that you weren't thinking. Were any of my examples citing victims that were drunk? No.

Nor did I say so. The point of that part was to point out if any alcohol ban would really help that.



Why do you state that you personally don't care about bars and then use them as an example? :inquisitive: Sounds like a one trick pony argument that has been exposed. Also, most people in my area that work these bars are smokers and don't get breaks (they traditionally have a cig going at the end of the bar inbetween serving patrons). How is this fair on them? Kind of turns your argument into a farce, tell me different when you know better.

I defended the logic of the ban. If the majority of those who attend to bars want to smoke at the bars, then fine, so be it. There is no human right to be able to go to a smoke-free bar, though it is more discriminating to having to breath in toxic smoke than not be able to create toxic smoke. :dizzy2:




Now, maybe I set a trap here :shame: . But you have given me exactly the answer I expected and wanted. These lobby groups would put you straight in the same pigeon hole that you now put me in. Think about it, I gave them citing obesity (drain on health funding), lack of social skills (bad for society as a whole) and power usage (you want the planet to burn?) as examples and you have tried to tell us that these are non of our business because it suits you now. How is that different from my case?

Oh mein Gott, am I trapped? This is not at all relevant.

What I have tried to state throughout the whole thread is that there is no friggin reason as of why other people can expose me for unhealthy substances just like that. It is sick. I can live with cars for now, they may serve a purpose, they may not; pending on the situation. I should NOT have to put up with others silly addictions that may damage my health and that serves NO puropose what so ever. If i become fat, antisocial and what not, it does not affect YOUR HEALTH in any way.



GET OFF THE BANDWAGON! At least until you have experience of the situation.

I'm not a member of any anti-smoke campaign, I am in no bandwagon. I simply do not want those extra, toxic substances in my lungs.

[Slug For A Butt]

I'll say no more on this subject. I think your rhetoric and ill conceived responses have said more than I could have hoped for. Thanks.

Regards,
Slug For A Butt.

[El Diablo]

I am a non-smoker and have several mates that do smoke. In New Zealand we have a no smoking law in pubs and resturants and it is pretty well adhered to.

When I go down for a pint or two and my mate wants to go for a smoke he heads outside, he does the same at my place and HIS place. He is not a huge fan of the smell but it is still his "affliction" as he calls it.

Do I think anything less of him - no.

But he knows how bad it is for him and hence others and thus as a curtiousy he keeps it away from me and other non-smokers. He is not a lepper that we banish outside it is his choice. He does not chains smoke so when we are having a few he is only gone maybe once an hour for 2-3 minutes. I am probably away from the table at the pub more with my "excessively small bladder" and copious toilet stops.

I dont think of smoking as the worse evil in the world but I prefer not to have it in my lungs. In the same way when I drink the byproduct is needing to go to the toilet - and so to keep my mates happy I go to the toilet rather than just "leaving a puddle" at the bar.

Slug For A Butt there is ample proof that smoking is not good for you and your choice to smoke is just that - your choice. As I have said I have no opinion on people choice to smoke. But smoking in an encolsed area does not give others the option to not inhale. Yes they have the option to not go to the pub, but they are not there to inhale smoke are they? Neither are you. You do not go to a pub to smoke - although it is something you do whilst you are there. It is not that drastic to go to the smoking area of a pub for a breif moment to "get your fix".

Plus you get the following bonuses:
You do not even have to light up in some of the smoking areas as they often clogged with smoke already. :laugh4:
You get to meet more people at the pub as the smokers over here seem to form some sort of bond whilst out there.
IF the smoking girls are easier then you know where they are :laugh4:

Come on you are not now a social outcast- and given a year or two all the pubs will provide warmed up areas for you. Or else you will go somewehere that will.

[Slug For A Butt]

As i said, I am going to contribute nothing further to this thread for fear of going over the same old ground over and over again. But people in your country are lucky they have smoking areas to go to in a pub. Wouldn't that make sense everywhere else? Everyone is happy then.

[Papewaio]

I think you might have found the Backroom more addictive then nicotine... it is a really hard habit to kick this one.

Enjoy, the debates can get fiery but the companionship does get better.

[Slug For A Butt]

I think you might have found the Backroom more addictive then nicotine... it is a really hard habit to kick this one.

Enjoy, the debates can get fiery but the companionship does get better.

Addictive indeed. Which is why I think it's good to know when to back out when I've said my piece, or else I'll just end up repeating myself without realising. :yes:
Fiery without descending into flaming is something the Backroom seems to have, which is nice.

[El Diablo]

By Slug For A Butt
Fiery without descending into flaming is something the Backroom seems to have, which is nice.

Well spoken - may your pub soon have a warm outdoor area and you never spark up the filter end.

[Viking]

No hatred, just strong opinions. ~D