The PINNACLE of disgusting [Smoking Ban]

Quote:

---

That's just it, there is no facts about second hand smoke and cancer

---

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:

---

"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.

---

None of these effect anyone else but smokeing does.
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)

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

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!

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

This is rubbish and you know it.

---

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.

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

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.

---

I work for an ethanol plant :)
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. :)

Quote:

---

the next thing on the list in alcohol

---

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.

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)

Quote:

---

And people smoke meth, not drink it

---

I mean methelated spirits like you use in spirit burners

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

I work for an ethanol plant :)
And people smoke meth, not drink it.

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penagate

I think he was referring to methylated spirits, not methadone.

---

I was refering to methamphetamines(SP?)

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:

Quote:

---

I think we should ban reality TV instead.

---

great idea, it'll save lives aswell. If i see another series of big brother i'm gona have to kill someone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

As the income from cigarettes is several billion p.a. (more than enough to cover the cost of the NHS!), a noticeable reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked will cause problems, and thus a requirement to tax higher on other items - alcohol/fuel/income tax/VAT/...

---

Just for info, the funding that the NHS received from the government last year was nearly 80 billion GBP. This is far, far more than is raised in tobacco taxes, which pulls in around 9.5 billion GBP.

Ah yes, my info was a few years old - the NHS funding has risen significantly (particularly for building/expanding hospitals etc), and tobacco income has fallen as the market reduces.

Note that your figure for tobacco duty does not include VAT and taxes on the manufacturers (corporation tax etc), which I guess adds at least another couple of billion.

It is still presumably enough to cover the costs of treating smoking related illnesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

Ah yes, my info was a few years old - the NHS funding has risen significantly (particularly for building/expanding hospitals etc), and tobacco income has fallen as the market reduces.

Note that your figure for tobacco duty does not include VAT and taxes on the manufacturers (corporation tax etc), which I guess adds at least another couple of billion.

It is still presumably enough to cover the costs of treating smoking related illnesses.

---

Indeed it is. Those who want the world to give up smoking also want to pay an extta 1.5p on income tax (at 22%) They then perhaps will not be able to afford to eat out or go to pubs, or pay for private medical treatment.

But hey, Who cares? At least no-one smokes no more.

It's not a moral issue - it's a fiscal one. The sooner everyone realises that the better.

Perhaps so. But I still don't want to breathe it. People can smoke all they want, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they aren't affecting anybody else who minds (or minors, particularly babies). They'll just remove themselves from the gene pool earlier.

zaza - Just cause you smoke or not doesn't effect your life expectency the way statistics attempt to portray. Sure it's not advisable, but it's not a death sentence either. I know people who smoked for 50+ years that are still alive and well at 85 (and no respirator mind you). I've also known people who were healthy and fit that passed before they turned 50.

The fact of the matter is, you're going to die; eventually. This campaign against smokers won't allow you to live longer. I already said before, but this whole thing is a way to put a "good face" on every bad motive fueling these laws and bans. I like yrwy's comment that the decision is fiscal. He's right. Here in Iowa, they've been talking about adding a dollar to each pack of cigarettes to fight methemphatemines. Why should my dollar (a sales tax no one else pays but smokers) go to help meth addicts? How does that make sense? How do these things even relate?

The answer is, they don't. It's another "good face" on a bad motive that will start to be siphoned in 2 years until it's abolished all together. Pretty soon, that tax will still be around. The reason will be lost, but the initial story kept the voter majority pumping their fist; so it all worked out.

You're fighting pointless battles with no gain and suffering huge losses. Quote me on this, pretty soon it'll be your bubble people decide they don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

zaza - Just cause you smoke or not doesn't effect your life expectency the way statistics attempt to portray. Sure it's not advisable, but it's not a death sentence either. I know people who smoked for 50+ years that are still alive and well at 85 (and no respirator mind you). I've also known people who were healthy and fit that passed before they turned 50.

---

But i know of people who smoke for 10 years and now have lung cancer and are going to die. so you know some lucky people the FACT is smoking leads to cancer. No getting away from that :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

The fact of the matter is, you're going to die; eventually. This campaign against smokers won't allow you to live longer. I already said before, but this whole thing is a way to put a "good face" on every bad motive fueling these laws and bans. I like yrwy's comment that the decision is fiscal. He's right. Here in Iowa, they've been talking about adding a dollar to each pack of cigarettes to fight methemphatemines. Why should my dollar (a sales tax no one else pays but smokers) go to help meth addicts? How does that make sense? How do these things even relate?

---

Why should my pound pay for your hospital care when you get ill because you smoke?

To conclude, the fact is the majority of people do not like smoking. And the majority should win. I am so looking forward to the ban I seriously cannot wait to come home after a night out and smell clean and fresh (relitivly ;)) I'm sorry but smokers have no argument any more. Its harmful to others so go elsewhere :)

Pino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

But i know of people who smoke for 10 years and now have lung cancer and are going to die. so you know some lucky people the FACT is smoking leads to cancer. No getting away from that :)

---

Untrue I'm afraid. Smoking can increase the rate at which cancer shows itself (for some people, hugely), but it does not cause it.

If your genes mean that you have a high chance of getting cancer, smoking is likely to bring it on more quickly (which is why the warning messages are allowed). A large proportion of the very old (90+) have been smoking for many years, but do not have cancer.

I can't remember the source, but I have seen statistics that the rate of cancer among smokers and non-smokers is roughly equal, however the age is (on average) slightly lower for smokers.

Quote:

---

Why should my pound pay for your hospital care when you get ill because you smoke?

---

It doesn't, but after this it will.

The current tax acquired from smoking pays for hospital care for smokers and many non-smokers too.

If smoking reduces, an average working person in the UK will need to pay (roughly £600 each pa) extra in taxes to make up the shortfall in loss of government income which currently comes from smoking.

Quote:

---

Its harmful to others so go elsewhere :)

---

Again, what's wrong with (completely) separate rooms for smoking?

Quote:

---

Why should my pound pay for your hospital care when you get ill because you smoke?

---

That's something you need to take up with your government officials. Like si said, we already pay extra taxes for our cigarettes; not to mention, higher health insurance premiums. When it comes to cigarettes, it sounds like you're getting the "butt" of the deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

Again, what's wrong with (completely) separate rooms for smoking?

---

This was tried, but the smokers refused to close the door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

That's something you need to take up with your government officials. Like si said, we already pay extra taxes for our cigarettes; not to mention, higher health insurance premiums. When it comes to cigarettes, it sounds like you're getting the "butt" of the deal.

---

I suppose its simple then... dont smoke.

I'm not being a pain in the arse here or anyhting. I dont see the attraction, I dont see the need and I see it as a problem. I wont touch girls that smoke, my g/f doesnt smoke, my friends dont smoke. And if they did i'd avoid them. I personally dont like it.

I agree to the fact you should be allowed to do it, but i dont agree with you doing it where people that dojnt like it do.

Suppose this did happen. That the smokers refused to close the door. This was one small group of smokers in one location. There was no national uprising of smokers reopening the door to infect every citizen with secondhand smoke. This is such a small and ridiculous example of "why it didn't work." It's like refusing a whole ethnicity into your store because one person of that race attempted to steal something.

Quote:

---

I suppose its simple then... dont smoke.

---

That's much more simple than saying "Dont drink alcohol ever again". ;)

You don't like smoking, fair enough. I agree you shouldn't be forced to inhale smoke. Separate smoking rooms would have been a more agreeable situation, and would have cost you less.

I'm fine with the slight extra tax, and the increased health premiums. I don't mind all of that (although, I do beleive they should increase health premiums on a person to person basis for alcohol as well). We can actually be fined and drop from our insurance plan if we test for nicotine and don't claim it on our insurance policy. Real rough situation, but outside of the point...

The point is, we pay our debt to society. We'll pay a little extra for cigarettes or insurance; we understand what we're doing to ourselves and we're fine with it for the most part. We dig our own graves and bury our own bodies; no one is picking up the bill for us.

I still seriously think nonsmokers have their priorities screwed though. If you're so worried about the cigarette exposure and your health, why does it stop there? You can smell cigarettes, and you know when you're being exposed. There's hundreds of toxins out there that you'll encounter and have no idea you did. They don't have a smell (or just a faint one) and they can do damage 20x worse then a little second hand smoke.

Tell me this, and be honest. If we could smoke, and the smoke had no smell... Would you still be against it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

I'm fine with the slight extra tax, and the increased health premiums. I don't mind all of that (although, I do beleive they should increase health premiums on a person to person basis for alcohol as well). We can actually be fined and drop from our insurance plan if we test for nicotine and don't claim it on our insurance policy. Real rough situation, but outside of the point...

The point is, we pay our debt to society. We'll pay a little extra for cigarettes or insurance; we understand what we're doing to ourselves and we're fine with it for the most part. We dig our own graves and bury our own bodies; no one is picking up the bill for us.

I still seriously think nonsmokers have their priorities screwed though. If you're so worried about the cigarette exposure and your health, why does it stop there? You can smell cigarettes, and you know when you're being exposed. There's hundreds of toxins out there that you'll encounter and have no idea you did. They don't have a smell (or just a faint one) and they can do damage 20x worse then a little second hand smoke.

Tell me this, and be honest. If we could smoke, and the smoke had no smell... Would you still be against it?

---

Not as much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

Not as much

---

Now, what if I invented a cologne that smelled like cigarettes. None of the harmful effects, but all of the smell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sevenhalo

Now, what if I invented a cologne that smelled like cigarettes. None of the harmful effects, but all of the smell?

---

Being honest the smell is a big part for me. But the helth concerns are also there!

So you admit that your motives are driven mostly by your own comfort and not necessarily heath concerns?

Honestly, mostly its a part of it. But as I say the health concerns for pro-longed exposure scare me.

A) Smoking causes Cancer not accelerates it
B) Smokers are also responsible for damaging non smokers health so no paying more tax on cigs isnt more acceptable
C) In practice seperate rooms would be better but no one would abide by them

I wished they passed an smoking ban law in my country.
I'm a non smoker, and my eyes are very sensitive to smoke. The ban is not on smoking completely, just dont stink up the joint for everyone else, just because you are a smoker.

What I couldn't understand though is why did Welsh, Irish and Scottish ministers vote on an English topic? That's just plain stupid! Only English ministers should have voted as it had nothing to do with the other home nations

Quote:

---

What I couldn't understand though is why did Welsh, Irish and Scottish ministers vote on an English topic? That's just plain stupid! Only English ministers should have voted as it had nothing to do with the other home nations

---

It's because the parliament at Westminster is the parliament of Great Britain rather than England. Therefore MP's who aren't English but are British have the right to vote on any act that comes though - even if the act only actually affects England.

Until we devolved power there wasn't really a contradiction as the act would have applied to Britain instead but now the Welsh, Scots and Irish have their own parliaments (actually, the Irish have had one for quite a while but that's a whole 'nother story) who could vote separately on such issues the contradiction creeps in. The obvious solution would be to create an 'English Assembly' but I personally think our Government system (including all the assemblies) is too big as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BodwadUK

A) Smoking causes Cancer not accelerates it
B) Smokers are also responsible for damaging non smokers health so no paying more tax on cigs isnt more acceptable
C) In practice seperate rooms would be better but no one would abide by them

---

Nope, "Smoking causes Cancer" is propoganda I'm afraid. It can be a very heavy accellerant in some cases, but (AFAIK) it has never actually been proven to be a direct cause.

I agree with B, hence the idea of smoking rooms being a good proposal - you aren't forced to be near the smoke.

As for C, don't be so blinkered - it would be a law, and we could be arrested. Also, smokers are not evil people - if there were proper smoking rooms we would use them, and would not smoke in non-smoking areas (as has been proven over and over again for many years.. how many people do you see smoking on busses/trains/planes?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

how many people do you see smoking on busses/trains/planes?).

---

I dont know what its like where you are, but people smoking on the bus is very very common.

Since it was banned around here (15ish years ago?) I've seen about 10 people, all teenagers trying to be cool. That's even with catching the bus at least twice a day during the week, for around 10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pino

I dont know what its like where you are, but people smoking on the bus is very very common.

---

I never see people smoking on busses and trains, and I use them everyday. The last time I saw someone smoke on a train was the "Animal Train" (The last train out of Leeds on a Saturday night. The bloke was drunk and almost immediatley got done by the police on board.

I've given up... There's no way to explain the facts to a nonsmoker. The arguements they pose and the defenses they take aren't even their own motives. It's all just skewed perceptions they regurgitate from the media.

Yes, first hand smoke is bad for you. It can lead asthma and all those other fun things. THAT'S the only thing we know for certain. Constant exposure and constant consumption can cause damage. Everything we know about second hand smoke FROM CIGARETTES is just assumptions. The way I see it, being exposed to second hand smoke at a bar is no more damaging then grilling on a sunday afternoon, roasting marshmallows in a campfire or having a wood burning fireplace.

But people like Pino don't appreciate the smell, and guess what... We understand. We have our own smoking rooms, we ask before lighting up if we're around people we might not know (if they say no, we go outside); we were always willing to adjust in order to avoid offense. We're not big bad boogeymen ashing in baby carriages. We're just people who like to have a cigarette after dinner the same way you might like to have a beer or chew on a toothpick.

I know this is hard for you nonsmokers to understand, because it's not something we have in common. It's difficult to even find a methaphorical comparison that would do it just. So I'm not even going to try. I'm done with this... If you can't even stretch your mind the slightest to see how a public ban on smoking is infringing on personal freedom; then there's no point carrying on with this. This is just the tip of the iceberg for future "comfort bans."

Hopefully, sometime down the line we'll remember that "our freedoms" are an objective right and not subjective idealogies.

seriously when i get on a bus I expect people to be smoking.... i'm not exadurating. must just be manchester

Quote:

---

seriously when i get on a bus I expect people to be smoking.... i'm not exadurating. must just be manchester

---

when i get on a bus i expect half the seats to be thrown out of the windows and sick on the floor, probly is just manchester

Quote:

---

Yes, first hand smoke is bad for you. It can lead asthma and all those other fun things. THAT'S the only thing we know for certain.

---

I could hit you realy realy hard with a crow bar, might kill you but we dont know for certain, so i'll go ahead and hit you

So,

Over here in NY State, they first managed to ban cell phone use in cars, then got around to banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

When are you getting banned from cell phone use while driving?

BTW,

I'm pro illigalizing tobacco.

I'm against this hypocritical banning nonsense, while the Gov'ts still gather taxes off of them.

Gov'ts should be sued, allowing hazardous, toxic, deadly products to be sold to the target market, while making a buck off of those doomed to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

So,

Over here in NY State, they first managed to ban cell phone use in cars, then got around to banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

When are you getting banned from cell phone use while driving?

---

Its already happened a few year ago. You are allowed to use them if you have a hands free kit. I actually agree with that law though its driving without due care and attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Gov'ts should be sued, allowing hazardous, toxic, deadly products to be sold to the target market, while making a buck off of those doomed to die.

---

How about petrol, alcohol, .... ? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by big blue alien

I could hit you realy realy hard with a crow bar, might kill you but we dont know for certain, so i'll go ahead and hit you

---

:confused: You know for certain that it will hurt him, rather than just "annoy" him. Please make decent comparisons.

Quote:

---

they first managed to ban cell phone use in cars,

---

If you mean for drivers thats been banned for ages

Quote:

---

Gov'ts should be sued

---

Do you think they'd take it out of their wages? Public services are already underfunded.

The intended use of petrol does not lead to disease.
The intended use of tobacco does.

By Intent, this product leads to the poor health and demise of its target market.

If Alcohol is as deadly, then it too should be illegal.

Quote:

---

By Intent, this product leads to the poor health and demise of its target market.

---

That's untrue, but I get your point.

The links between tobacco and disease is far less proven than the link between Alcohol and disease - hovever Alcohol is much more socially acceptable these days, and as such will not be made illegal (unless governments make the same kind of actions towards it as they did towards tobacco).

Quote:

---

The intended use of petrol does not lead to disease.

---

It does, just not directly to the user - the fumes expelled from the vehicle cause/inflame asthma and other breathing conditions, and it damages the environment - which affects us all to some degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by si_the_geek

Nope, "Smoking causes Cancer" is propoganda I'm afraid. It can be a very heavy accellerant in some cases, but (AFAIK) it has never actually been proven to be a direct cause.

---

How much evidence do you need?: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/can...moking/?a=5441.

Tabacco smoke contains carcinogens, carcinogens cause genetic mutations that lead to cancer. Your never going to get a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study into the effects of smoking, so yes perhaps a 'scientific proof' is always beyond the moral horizon.

Regarding the difference between alcohol and tabacco: alcohol in moderation does have certain physiological benefits, lowering blood pressure through vasodilation. It is also nowhere near as physically addictive as smoking (obviously, psychologically it can be highly addictive).

I'm anti-smoking, but I also think drinking to excess it just as dangerous to yourself and others - but that is largely a problem with society itself.

The chemicals being pump constantly into our environments (specifically in the home - glade plugins / airsprays and alike) are all likely to be future causes of health problems amongst the wider population.

The problem is that there are a whole bunch of 'wrongs', and arguing that smoking should be ignored because there are others that aren't being legislated against, is niave to say the least.

Your link didn't contain any evidence, only quotes from studies - which may or may not have been biased/accurate.

I have seen the results of several studies (including ones funded by cancer research organisations that were never actually published), but typically there is too small a group/duration for any conclusive evidence, or the science and conclusions have been dubious at best. As you say tho, a proper 'proof' is extremely hard for anything of this nature.


I do agree that smoking is not good for you, and that people should not be "forced" to be in smoky areas if they dont want to be. What I disagree with is the ban stopping us from being able to have proper smoking areas of pups/clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmobile

The problem is that there are a whole bunch of 'wrongs', and arguing that smoking should be ignored because there are others that aren't being legislated against, is niave to say the least.

---

I hope that wasn't aimed at me - at no point have I said that smoking should be ignored, only that the particular ruling in question is harsh (and due to finances, other "wrongs" are likely to be next).

There have been several posts in this thread (by people who understandably don't like smoke), which have completely ignored the fact that most smokers are decent people, and try to avoid "forcing" people to be near our smoke. I've been trying to show them that smoking isn't the only evil in the world, and trying to let them understand how this feels for nearly 30% of the population (according to your link).

A middle ground allowing both sides to have a suitable drinking experience would have been a much better solution in my opinion.