Printable View
Just saw a piece on the 10 O'clock news saying that smoking will be ban in the UK in all enclosed public places. With the exception of Private Clubs, and places that do not serve food.
[Edit]
Related link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4014597.stm
This can't be happening. :cry:
hahahaha we have to suffer and so shall ye.
I think it's '06 for Scotland and '08 for England.
Here's a new word:
Smirting.
Defined as smoking and flirting, usually outside a pub.
I know things are jus getting silly :( First they bombard use with Anti-Smoking Slogans and Adverts now they are trying to ban it.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
This can't be happening. :cry:
Maybe we should sue for harrasment :lol:
Good thing. Guys believe when I tell you, smoking sucks. I smoked for 5 years to the point that I said screw this. Threw a pack of cigarettes out the window of my car and never turned back. Thee is nothing redeeming about smoking at all. It doent make you feel good at all. Just makes you cough up nasty junk.
Now weed on the other hand......
Got to save this!Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
Good thing. Guys believe when I tell you, smoking sucks. I smoked for 5 years to the point that I said screw this. Threw a pack of cigarettes out the window of my car and never turned back. Thee is nothing redeeming about smoking at all. It doent make you feel good at all. Just makes you cough up nasty junk.
Now weed on the other hand......
:D
But what if you don't want to quit smoking, and your to arragant(sp) to listen to other? :rolleyes:
Listen to your lungs and throat then as that yellowish liquid your are coughing up is telling you to do.
Really guys, you may go through some not feeling so well after you quit due to withdrawl, but its definatly worth it.
I lost my uncle to cigarette smoking, he was a stubborn SOB, even after a couple operations he kept going with the nasty habit. I wish he was still around, my aunt misses him a lot. :(
Quit whining. I lost my grandfather to it. I am losing my mother-in-law to it.
Yet, similar legislation has passed in my town, and no one I know, including those of us who do not smoke, thinks it is a good idea.
Let people smoke. Let them smoke whatever they want. Let them smoke it in public.
The smoking ban is brilliant in Ireland IMO. There are 2 main reasons, and one smaller issue.
1) Lack of smoke means your brain has more oxygen over course of evening and you can drink considerably more with lesser effects the next morning.
2) Women standing outside smoking. 'nuff said.
Smaller issue) That of health.
It's about money. In the UK revenues from cigarettes exceed the money spent looking after smoking related diseases; so surely the government wants more people to start smoking . . . perhaps.
What I think a smoking ban will do is create those 'little private clubs' that smokers enjoy outside the office with the gossip, the lies, the rest, and the promotion. These 'little private clubs' will end up fostering themselves inside our social lives thus creating a distinct split across society. Smokers will be friends with smokers and non-smokers friends with non-smokers.
Then smoking pubs and clubs will arise that are private membership (50p/yr perhaps) that will charge an added little charge for having a *** and a pint in the same place.
VAT and tax revenue will thus increase as most heavy drinkers are also smokers.
Perhaps not, eh. I'll ponder it over a cigarette . . .
I dunno about that? I thought that the NHS was sill undefunded, no matter how much people smoke?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I have to say that i do agree with the ban simply becasue if you dont like smoking, you shouldnt have to deal with it in your face :-/ sure i'm all for people being able to smoke in private but ona bus when you get a 11 year old kid blowing smoke in your face ..... a ban might be somthing they listen to and obey rather than a no smoking sign
A friend with weed is a friend indeed :bigyello:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cander
And I think that fat tub of lard, Rob Reiner, and his Facist clan are responsible for this. South Park made fun of him (my favorite episode ;)). And all those anti-pot and anti-smoking commercials are just false propaganda. I know smoking is bad for ya but it doens't mean that the Truth ads have to lie. There are no 4000 some odd poisonous and deadly chemicals in cigarettes. Millions of people do NOT die every year from smoking. There is no proof that 2nd hand smoke kills you (and no case of deaths on 2nd hand smoke), etc etc. But smoking can kill you. And make you look more ugly as you get older. Very very slowly.
And as for the anti-pot commercials. Smoking weed does not support terrorism, it doesn't make people want to shoot other people, it doesn't lead into harder drugs (just more junk food LOL! It's your own personal choice to do that. It's called personal responsibility ya morons), there are zero case of deaths from smoking marijuana, you do not get high on the first hit unless it's crip, etc etc etc.
Also, weed has great health benefits. It helps glaucoma and cancer patients. It has been scientifically proven to prevent brain cancer. It helps people who have arthritis. Did I mention zero deaths? The list goes on. The only reason why it's illegal is because of this one man from back in the 50's and 60's (I'll try and find his name somewhere on the internet). He was a part of some of the propaganda videos that were out around that era that shown that marijuana is just as hard of a drug as cocaine and heroin. When he made a case of his facts (actually his opinions) on marijuana through the courts and the legal system, weed has been illegalized since the 60's. I saw a documentary on it on A&E a year ago of marijuana.
What a pile of bovine excrement...
http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=38105Quote:
Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, and lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including bronchitis and emphysema. It costs the NHS about £1500 million (£1.5 billion) a year to treat patients who have a smoking-related disease.
http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/1/1/61539711.htmlQuote:
However, it appears to confirm Evening Standard estimates that the ban will cost the Government at least 1.8 billion pounds a year in lost tax revenues, equivalent to more than 1/2 pence in the pound on the basic rate of income tax. The cost to the Treasury of lost tobacco duty -- it currently collects 8.1 billion pounds a year -- and smaller VAT and corporation tax receipts dwarfs the 250 million pounds annual savings that the British Medical Association claims the National Health Service could make by treating fewer smoking-related illnesses.
Around 10 Billion in tax revenues in the UK alone
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/statistics/UK/revenue.htm
It's about money. Accept it. Keep on puffing . . .
SMOKERS ARE PROPPING UP THE NHS
Furthermore next time you use the NHS emergency services and you have to pass that wall of smokers to get in; just give them a nod, and say thank you for their significant extra contribution to the health service you are just about to use.
I've just noticed that f-a-g is a banned word. It certainly is not in the UK - it's slang for cigarette - and I couldn't give a monkey about the back water dialect that M$ likes to call US English (which doesn't actually exist)
Perhaps the moderators would like to consider context. Then again, perhaps not.
I'll go to my room and sulk. :sick:
I feel so lied to, all through school they told me that smokers where costing the NHS. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
On the final balance sheet - the government make a profit out of people smoking. :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by john tindell
Banning smoking in enclosed public areas won't stop smoking, so I don't see how this will reduce the income. All kind of a strange argument, must be a Brit thing.
Second hand smoke causes the same problems that first hand smoke causes. You don't need a study to show that, you need a study to show why that is not the case. Think about it for a minute. If there is some toxic chemical in cigarette smoke that is harmful, is it reasonable to say that the smoker absorbs the entire amount of this toxin in each puff? We don't even pull in all the Oxygen from a single breath, so what is so special about this toxin? One could certainly argue that the toxin is diluted sufficiently in second hand smoke that it is within the range where our bodies can handle it, but I think it would be better to prove that before you subject all non-smokers to a poison (that smokers accept).
To use an extreme example, if there was a room with a certain level of chlorine gas in it, how comfortable would you feel working in that room if you were told "This is a lethal gas, and it is in this room, but we don't know if it is at a lethal level in this room."
Shaggy Hiker i can understand your point, but in where i live there are a lot of non smoking places, which are really nice. Everyone one has a choice where they want to spend their free time, but making the whole country non-smoking i dont agree.
I do know some one who has had lung cancer and has died it wasnt nice but at the end of the day it was their choice.
I like to think of it as a comfort thing: You don't do certain things in public enclosed spaces (like talking on your damn cellphone!!!).
There is nothing I hate more than when I have to sit in the smoking section of a restaurant: all the food tastes like crap because of it.
I agree 100%! even as a smoker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
But I don't see you complaining about significantly higher levels of toxins put in the air by your huge 4 litre car zoomiing around the North American (or European) continent. Nor do I see you complaining about the large amounts of sulphur dioxide levels industries the world over are pumping into the air. These chemicals are being dumped into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than the chemicals smokers generate.
In case you hadn't noticed we are in a closed space - it's called Earth.
Is that an excuse to exhonerate smokers?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Of course not. Anyone who believes that inhaling smoke is inherently safe is a bloody lunatic - and stupid at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Its about time it was banned :wave:
I dont mind people smoking outside but in enclosed areas like pubs or places that serve food it is just annoying.
I dont like women that smoke so its a plus point there too :afrog:
[rant]Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
How about polluting the land that food is grown on; you don't seem to mind that. The issue here is about pollutants that affect the human body. Smoking is certainly one of them. But there are far bigger pollutants out there that need to be tackled first. We all know that when we buy cheap food the land has had all of it's natural wildlife killed off (herbicides, pesticides etc) but do you buy the farm-shop stuff that tastes better (but doesn't look it) and costs more? I doubt it - I can't even locally go to a farm-store anymore. It's christmas time so we all go to a supermarket to buy a turkey. One that has lived in a foot square box all of it's life. One that has been saturated with water to increase it's sell weight. One that has been dipped in bleach so it's flesh cooks white instead of light brown. Merry bloody christmas!
All of the efforts and parliamentary time expended in banning smoking could and can be better spent. Legislating for premises that serve food to ban smoking is a waste of time anyway - they could have done it anytime anyway - and some premises have.
It's another example of nanny-state. The philosophies of those who want this has to be fundamentally flawed or they would understand that campaigning for a cleaner earth is much more important than campaigning for a cleaner pub.
[/rant]
:(
No its about protecting those who choose not to try and kill themselves by inhaling smoke :)
lets look at it
A) it is bad for the user
B) it is bad for everyone else near the user
C) It stinks
You gain nothing from smoking but a sense of worth now all we want to do is ensure we take that away from you too :afrog:
You are not capable of taking candy from a baby: we'll leave it at that.
As for your 'ABC Guide to a stop smoking campaign' I'll print it out and laugh at it outside now with a cigarette and a cup of tea.
;)
people should be able to put whatever they want in there body, and BodWad if you want to ban smoking in pubs you should consider an alcohol ban. Alcohol is far worse for you and others around you than smoking is
Ban everything that isn't 100% good for. Let's make a list:
Water? Nope you can drown in that: it's far too dangerous. You can choke any most food so we can't have that.
Superb! The human race will be dead in 4 weeks.
Um 5 days if we cant have water :lol:
You go first, then. I'll observe with a pack of cigarettes, and a few pints of beer . . .
I hate these arguments that alcohol is worse for you.
Perhaps it is, but I don't kill the guy next to me by having a pint. If someone smokes next to me I am breathing in secondary smoke and that kills
This legislation will not affect clubs and such, only places that serve food. It is also intended to stop bar tenders to stop having to breathe in this smoke all night when they are not even smoking.
California, New York and Ireland seem to have adjusted perfectly well to this change, why not us?
I wonder if I get a job as a mechanic I can get a bill through parliament that bans grease and oil as these too are known killers - carcinogens.
Face it guys, this IS going to happen. Perhaps if Ireland being smoke-free was a complete failure then they would have thought twice. With it being a resounding success they will push it into law asap.
The numbers are on their side after all, two-thirds of the adult population are non-smokers, and most of the "Have Your Say" forums on the BBC News website reflect the opinion that it would be welcomed :thumb:
Dude, you are preaching to a guy who bought a house specifically so he wouldn't have to drive at all, and bought the most feul efficient car he could get (that would haul the tiny sail boat I have). No huge 4 litre car, no SUV, no pickup truck, just a Subaru (with the discontinued 2.2 litre engine, they are now all 2.5 or higher) with a trailer hitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I agree with your views, and do what I can to reverse it.
I disagree with that. I expect that moderate amounts of alcohol are actually beneficial. However, as a cost on society, alcohol is probably the most damaging drug in the world, though nicotine would be second.Quote:
Originally Posted by davebat
By the way, toxicologists have a saying that everything is deadly, it's just a matter of dosage. Water isn't only harmful from drowning, it is possible (at least in theory, and I think I have heard a case of this in practice) to die from drinking too much. Water passes through cellular membranes VERY easily. You can die from it if you drink so much that you pick up enough into your bloodstream that it alters the fairly delicate chemical balances in your blood.