Printable View
Wow, washington state has everyone beat in ridiculous smoking ban laws. even california. Smoking is banned indoors at Cigar bars and Tobacco Shopes.
If the SOLE purpose of a busisness is to have patrons come in, spend $150 bucks on a cigar and a glass of brandy, sit in a relaxing chair and smoke and drink, WTH is a non smoker doing there? :confused:
To sit in a relaxing chair and drink?Quote:
If the SOLE purpose of a busisness is to have patrons come in, spend $150 bucks on a cigar and a glass of brandy, sit in a relaxing chair and smoke and drink, WTH is a non smoker doing there?
I agree a smokeing room would be a good compromise but the laws passed. I remember a restaurant i went to a couple of times, the stink from the smokers IN THE SMOKEING ROOM was way too much. but that was an extreame case and i expect a bit of a smell in a pub
They are shops that only serve high end cigars and high end liquor. People go there for that purpose only. There is no stink from the smoking room. Actually the one I used to take my clients, who smoked, to had hardly any smoke in them at all. That is what a 500,000 air filtration system and a good cleaning a couple times a day will do for you. The smoke smell does not penetrate Glass ,Polished Marble, and Treated leather.Quote:
Originally Posted by big blue alien
The argument the governement made against it was that employees would still have to enter it to clean, collect glasses etc. Seems a bit of weak argument to me though, surely any pub would be able to find a smoking employee somewhere among it ranks to carry out this single duty.Quote:
I can understand that, but what is wrong with having only certain rooms for smoking?
As someone who has had my head stamped on for no greater crime than having long hair and being a bit of a hippy in Southampton City Centre on a Saturday night I'd like to say that other peoples drinking has had a greater effect on my health than other peoples smoking. That said, the first person who suggests we ban drinking will have to answer to me (where's a shaking fist smiley when you need one).
Lets put it simply.
The law is coming into effect next summer and as it stands there isnt anything you can do about it.
So
NAH NAH NAH NAAAAH NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
:afrog: :afrog:
This thread just makes me want to smoke in more public places.
This whole smoking thing about wether it's alright or not has gotten pass the point of ridiculous. Meth addicts are treated better then we are. I'll be sitting in my living room enjoying a tv show or something and I'll see a "We care, you need help. Let's all have a hug and stop meth."
Then comes the JEL antismoking commercial where kids are crying, babys are rolling around in gas masks and some guy is standing around yelling at buildings and pedestrians that "you're doing this, you're killing. People die every minute cause of you soley!"
This bothers me to high hell. I'm a working, functioning member of society. I pay my taxes, get my bills in on time and shovel my snow within a reasonable amount of time. I also smoke, and I enjoy it immensely (don't start kiddies). I don't light up infront of children... I think I'm a sensible smoker. I know when it's not welcome and so does 99% of all smokers. If a nightclub wants to say "no smoking," fine. That's up to them. I'll respect that like I was in my friends house.
Everything was fine. Our smoker to nonsmoker arangement was working great. Sure you nonsmokers got upset when someone lit up at a restaraunt, but it was the smoking section. They allowed us to smoke there. This is when I think things got ugly. People started asking for first avaliable tables (cause usually, the smoking section is the last section to fill up) and sometimes they sat in smoking. Instead of realizing we were allowing you into our territory (and taking a table away from a smoker who might now have to sit in nonsmking); you thought that eliminating our section completely might get you a nonsmoking table in time for happy hour. That makes you the evil ones...
Smokers are some of the nicest, most social people in the world. There is no other circle where you can walk up to any complete stranger, bum a cigarette (assuming it's not the last one, smokers totally understand and share) and then engage in a 15 minute conversation without even knowing their name. And we all feel bad when we bum, there's a huge guilt involved. Not to mention, we NEVER tried to get our smoking section expanded or moved. We were content sharing the 4 tables next to the bathroom.
So congratulations, you nonsmokers have now aquired the bathroom tables. Now that you can't complain about the smoke, you'll complain about the smell and traffic of the bathrooms. I look forward to your next crusade where you force restaraunts to have outhouses instead.
Smoking sections in restaurants is simply ridiculous. The smoke does actually travel across a room and it puts me off my food almost insantly. I'm sure that if a nightclub was non-smoking all patrons would abide by that...IF they were not already drunk. When you are drunk your judgement capabilities are severly diminished so you'd likely light up regardless.
Besides, if the club was non-smoking that is by the clubs choice and so there would be no enforcement or punishment for lighting up in the club. With this new law they will have to enforce the non-smoking policy because it will be law and the club faces a £2,500 fine for each offence (and you face £50).
Let me ask all of you smokers here (and it's obvious here who is and isn't), have any of you been to a country that already has this law? I have been to Dublin and have to be honest I was very impressed with it. The social life was not any different (and most of my friends are smokers) and was frankly more enjoyable.
So it's our fault that a restaraunt doesn't provide proper venhilation (sp?) in their smoking sections? Alot of them around here have seperate rooms. It's not even in the same area as you nonsmokers. The only reason why that wasn't working is because of your impatience to wait for a nonsmoking table to open up.
I have not been to an area where it's enforced. I have seen alot of our restaraunts giving up their smoking sections because of your demands, but we don't have police officers enforcing a ban yet.
And I'm glad life's more enjoyable for you. After all, that's all that matters.
Indeed it is. For once the majority opinion wins
I haven't been to a country with a ban, but as all the smokers here will already understand I am in the same situation regularly (at houses of non-smoking friends etc), but that doesn't mean I can completely relax and enjoy it.
I don't expect you to believe/understand this, but it's like going to a club and being told that you (and only you) aren't allowed to drink. You get to spend the time watching everyone else enjoy themselves, whilst trying to stay on the same level as your friends. It's ok occasionally, but is not something that I should be forced into every time I go out.
I don't understand why anti-smokers seem to forget that we are people too, why should we be forced into this, rather than a decent compromise - which a large proportion of smokers have advocated for a long time.
You also seem to ignore the fact that the majority of the population don't actually care that much - you hate it yourself and therefore the happiness of many others doesn't matter.
By the way, the pub industry in the southern part of Northern Ireland is currently booming - and the industry in the northern part of Ireland is having problems.
Then that is poor design of those restaurants; They should have adequate ventilation/spacing/walls/etc. I admit that many places dont have the space/funds to do it properly, so a ban in those places would be fine. A ban everywhere is OTT.Quote:
The smoke does actually travel across a room and it puts me off my food almost insantly.
I'm a smoker, living in California.. I moved here from chicago and at first I was screaming bloody murder about having to go outside to smoke. After some time, I don't really mind it - but I'm in california. It's February and 65 degrees outside. Now, Chicago recently adopted the same policy, and that I won't like at all.
I would really like to see some hard core research and facts about employees getting cancer from second hand smoke. Even still - your place of employment is a choice. As is your choice of restaraunt/bar/club.
Bill
:ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
Whoah, deja vu!
Anyway, if someone drinks a pint next to me I'm not breathing in toxic fumes fron that pint am I? Look, this law was inevitable and I could not see any difference of social life in Dublin compared to Bristol or Cardiff.
Why should you be forced into it? Because you force second hand smoke down into someones lungs. The question is who should be forced outside the smoker or non-smoker to create a safe environment? Considering the smoker is the cause of the smoke it would be him. Because the smoke would still linger in the pub it would have to be the smoker to go outside. Like it or not the current healthly lifestyle being promoted required something be done about smoking in public areas.
If a pub or club have customised smoking rooms or beer gardens (which most places in Dublin had) then I have no problem with that and it's probably likely that most places will have such rooms
That's just it, there is no facts about second hand smoke and cancer. It's all based on "well, common sense would tell you it's probably bad."
"Common sense" would also tell you that driving with your windows down during rushhour traffic is probably bad for you too. Or opening a window when there's a smog alert. Or not wearing sunscreen if you're going to be outside all day. Or eating too much McDonald's.
Do we need laws and regulations to keep us from doing this? No, we can figure all of this out ourselves. I'm going to start a new crusade, right now.
I hate sitting next to fat people on airplanes and buses. Honestly, it is the worst thing. It makes me horribly uncomfortable and I have no way to avoid it. Because of that, I want people to register with the government so they can regulate how often we eat fast food each week. We can have ID cards that we have to scan and our financial records can be auditted and searched to make sure we're not cheating.
I like this idea, I don't particularly care for fast food so it won't bother me. But it'll make my life more enjoyable.
Yet all of these things you point out are personal lifestyle choices you have made. Smoking is a personal lifestyle choice that also affects the health of those around you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Would you open your car window during a smog alert if there was a young child in the back? No because doing so would also affect the childs health
My wearing no sunscreen outside does not affect your health if I stand next to you, yet smoking next to someone would.
That is as a non-smoker tho, for you it wouldn't be different would it? ;)Quote:
Look, this law was inevitable and I could not see any difference of social life in Dublin compared to Bristol or Cardiff.
As I said, think of how you would feel being stuck not drinking - on every night out.
Like it or not, alcohol is worse for you. Believe it or not, coffee is quite bad too.Quote:
Like it or not the current healthly lifestyle being promoted required something be done about smoking in public areas.
The cost of drinking isn't purely long-term health related either, there is the increased violence and policing costs, increased vanadalism, all of the accidents involving drunk people, etc.
I have always avoided doing this as much as possible, as I have said several times I was in favour of specific smoking rooms.Quote:
Why should you be forced into it? Because you force second hand smoke down into someones lungs.
:confused: erm.. yet again, the point of this ban (from what has been said on the news etc) is that you cannot have those rooms! Beer gardens are ok in good weather, but not in rain/snow etc.Quote:
If a pub or club have customised smoking rooms or beer gardens (which most places in Dublin had) then I have no problem with that and it's probably likely that most places will have such rooms
Don't believe everything you hear in the news. There are pubs in Cardiff already in the process of building these rooms/gardens.
Alcohol is bad for you no doubt, but it doesn't affect those around you. Smoking can affect people up to 10 metres away!
Stupid point but they are clamping down on alcoholics
Second hand smoke is dangerous and I will not be used as a lab rat to find out how dangerous.
Very good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
Before I start, I AM a smoker, but this, I hope, does not reflect in my rationality towards the subject.
Smoking, and it's related environmental concerns are real. Very real. I do not smoke in the company of children, adults, or non-smokers for that very reason. It is my choice. I do, however, smoke in a pub. One can argue that this is a herd instinct, but I find it difficult to justify that. I smoke because it is allowed. Now it will be banned, I will smoke outside, and will have no problem with that.
But now we've banned that, what's next? What else can someone do that damahes my health?
Let's start with anyone with a car capacity of greater than 1 litre. This gives my daughter asthma (life threateningly), and increases my discomfort during the summer months when I have to have an injection in my bum to prevent hayfever (otherwise my body swells like a balloon)
Let's carry on with mobile phones. Sure, there's been studies that prove? there is no health risk, but there's been the same studies for passive smoking. Each should be held equally. I don't want to stick (unlike what many of you want me to do) my head in a microwave, so why should I suffer so that you lot can text your mates?
Let's further carry it on with obesity. It's unpleasant, and I just don't like sitting next to fat smelly people. I could argue that methane (CH4) is a much much more efficient greenhouse than carbon dioxide (C02) so let's close down (remember we can't tax crap food - we taxed the smokers and that didn't work) all those places that sell food that isn't good for you. I certainly don't want to pay for the endless amounts of diseases that occur when someone has led a very bad dieted life.
While we're at we should ban all self-service of oil, and other petroleum products. If you get this on your skin did you know it's a carcinogen? Well, I, personally don't want to pay for you to be treated for that condition when the only reason you got that condition was for an act of convenience.
Speeding. Well, that's got to be the death penalty. It's reckless and it endangers life. Reduce all speed limits by 20 mph, and we'll all be a lot safer. I don't want to suffer the ill effects of speeding - such as almost certain death over 40mph
Cars. How much time do I waste sitting in my car in traffic jams around London (about 1/3rd of my day) Well, I'm wasting huge quantities of my life sitting there whilst some @rse who can't be bothered to take the train gets in my way.
But, of course, there is always the option of choice. There are plenty of non-smoking establishments around. Let market forces choose. But they wouldv'e done already if the those for this ban had voted with their feet. But because they haven't, I can only suppose, that they just don't believe in this enough to be of any concern
Like you said, don't beleive everything in the news. We're not shotgunning smoke into our children's faces. I even mentioned before that I won't smoke infront of kids (and I have alot of friends who feel the same).Quote:
Would you open your car window during a smog alert if there was a young child in the back? No because doing so would also affect the childs health
Alcohol causes deaths. Unresponsible people drive drunk. If your attitude towards smoking is that it can effect people 10 metres away, what does that say about a drunk guy behind the wheel? We know that's going to kill someone. We don't know if second hand smoke is worse for you then other elements in the air.
Yes it does - there have been many times that I have seen people attacked on the streets during the day (and been on the receiving end myself a few times too) simply because the attacker was drunk.Quote:
Alcohol is bad for you no doubt, but it doesn't affect those around you.
When it gets to Friday/Saturday night in town, it's not surprising to see many fights over virtually nothing, with ambulances quickly in attendance.
There are also many occasions when drunk people are involved in road accidents, leading to the death of others, or themselves - which can scar the driver who hit them for life.
Dont let your hatred of smoking cloud your vision of the facts. ;)
This is rubbish and you know it. do a quick search for the facts. Have you ever heard of any reaserch saying its not bad for you (unless its sponcered by the tabaco companies)Quote:
That's just it, there is no facts about second hand smoke and cancer
None of these effect anyone else but smokeing does.Quote:
"Common sense" would also tell you that driving with your windows down during rushhour traffic is probably bad for you too. Or opening a window when there's a smog alert. Or not wearing sunscreen if you're going to be outside all day. Or eating too much McDonald's.
I understand smokers thinking its not that bad but thats because your used to the stink, non-smokers arn't, and if you want to risk your life thats fine by me. Just dont risk anyone else's for them.
Anyone who drinks and drives, whether they have caused an accident should get a relevant jail sentence insantly. It is inexcusable.
As for yrywddfa's point about car emissions I am in total agreement with you. Cars should not be giving out those kind of emissions when there are safe alternatives but there are only about 10 models that use electric power and even they are hybrids. Car manufacturers should offer more models that use ONLY electric power. I'd buy one right now (I'm actually looking at the hybrid at the moment)
Thats very true. Alcohol is very dangerous but does that make smokeing right? If yes then so must be all drugs and dangerous driving.Quote:
Yes it does - there have been many times that I have seen people attacked on the streets during the day (and been on the receiving end myself a few times too) simply because the attacker was drunk.
Alcohol does affect people around you (Well maybe not you Valleys you seem a decent chap) but drunks getting violent, or just overly loud when when your out for a drink with the mrs, spilling drinks everywhere. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
If they do allow smoking rooms/areas they had better be comfortable and quite large because most of the pubs and bars around here the smoking areas will be the busiest area on the premisis.
My point is that smoking has been an inherent freedom forever. I have no problem with a ban.
My problem is the reasoning behind it. There are plenty of things us humans get up to that
(i) Make life difficult for someone else
(ii) Make life endangered for someone else
If you want to ban smoking on these grounds then, logically, you should be banning the rest, too.
My point is, they have not proven it to be worse or cancer assisting then other elements. It is bad, yes; but so are car emissions. And that factory down the street, it's not making pretty, fluffly clouds. Also, your fireplace... Should we ban those as well, they stink up whole city blocks.Quote:
This is rubbish and you know it.
You went after smokers cause the media told you to. You ate every word right up because it seemed to make sense and it didn't effect you directly. As a bonus, your air smells a little cleaner every now and then. You're still getting carcinigens (sp?) and cancer causing agents... Those tax dollars tossed at commercials and awareness programs (it wasn't all tobacco supported) would have been better off providing new smoke stack filters for industrial sites and researching a clean burning fuel (like ethanol, sorry had to plug it :)).
I'd be very happy if all cars ran on ethanol, I've been wishing that for years.
I don't know why there is so much fuss about this ban though. It's not any worse than what is already in effect in many countries. Like I said earlier we have had similar regulations in Australia for years. And here smoking has been prohibited in most of the places mentioned for longer than the laws have been in place anyway. It's not like smoking is completely outlawed or anything. It's just one step towards improving the health levels of our society, just like moving to sustainable fuels will be one day. It can't happen all at once but at least the world is making some progress.
I wonder how many people would try to drink it if they had ethanol cars?
They use ethanol in loads of South American countries. not because of the emmisions but because its much cheaper and its renuable but i think if the whole world used it their wouldnt be enough to go around
They add a poisonous chemical. Besides, it's made from sugar cane (among other things). If we all grew it there'd be plenty.
The fuss is that the regulations are too tight. There's a splinter in our finger and the government is cutting off the hand. The choice isn't left in the hands of the people or even the owners of the business... It's a huge infringement on our right and freedom. While it seems small and miniscule right now to a nonsmoker and they can justify the regulations anyway they want to; this is a huge step towards another law about what we can and can't do.
If we lose this battle and people can see that "wow, my discomforts can change other people's lives darasically;" the next thing on the list in alcohol. I would bet my last dollar on it. MADD and other anti-alcohol advocates will call for the same funding and support from the government (and from lawsuits against budweiser and other brewers) to start creating dry communities and awareness programs.
Eventually, it will just seem like common sense that people should not be allowed to have any alcohol in them while they're in public. Soon, it will turn to bars and making sure they don't serve people too much (instead of leaving it the hands of the bartender like it is, the government will put a max 3 drink regulation or something).
More gas stations and family grocery stores will be pressured to not sell alcohol, or keep it hidden so children can't see it. From there, it's going to be exactly what's happening to cigarettes right now.
It's a spiral and you'll let them do it. After all, it is just "common sense." By the time it's over, you'll be so reeducated that you won't even know why we allowed it in the first place (reffering to entheogenic agents from the 60's and 70's).
well people drink meths so i dont think that would put them off
How many countries have the right climate to grow it though, its fine for South America and Africa but if you add Europe and the US and China. I think we need a mix of ethanol, hydrogen and electric
I work for an ethanol plant :)Quote:
They add a poisonous chemical. Besides, it's made from sugar cane (among other things). If we all grew it there'd be plenty.
http://www.cornlp.com
It mainly comes from grain (corn) here in the US. And you're right, we do poison it.
And people smoke meth, not drink it. That's completely different anyway. The poison we add will make you sick, you'll throw up profusely. You won't get enough down to even get a buzz before you're spending your night in the procelein bowl. :)
Way too many people drink for that to work and it can be done sensibly so i dont think a total ban on alchol will ever happen.Quote:
the next thing on the list in alcohol
In victorian britain you could get opium in a corner shop, do you think thats right. When it was banned it was very unpopular but when you look at it now its very sensible. Thats how people will see smokeing in the futur (most people see it like that now)
I mean methelated spirits like you use in spirit burnersQuote:
And people smoke meth, not drink it
How many people do you think smoked back in the 70's?
I don't know hardly anyone who didn't smoke back then. Alot have quit since, but it was all the time, everywhere. Even at work at your desk. I t was as common as coffee.
Not true, people can drink, inject, sniff, smoke, eat meth. Hell, I'm sure there are some bored tweakers out there making meth suppositories. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
I think he was referring to methylated spirits, not methadone.
Liquor is too easy for the average dumbarse to make themselvs for a national ban to ever be effective. All a ban will do is make Canadian wiskey and mexican tequilla very popular and expensive just like it did the last time they tried it. I think we should ban reality TV instead.
I was refering to methamphetamines(SP?)Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
I would venture to bet that one should never try to smoke methylated spirits :lol:
That's the one. I always get the damn things muddled up :blush: