Hmmmm ?
Printable View
Hmmmm ?
I'd gladly pay a little extra tax if it meant a ban on smoking in public places :afrog:
Me too :lol:
:thumb: :D Bring on the ban :bigyello: :thumb:
Then he saving even more money for the government!Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
:eek2:
There are clearly British dimensions to this that I am unaware of. We tax tobacco products, but the revenue is fairly trivial. I take it that it is otherwise over there? What is the tax on a pack of cigs? Are there more smokers over there than there are here?
:bigyello:
Big money in NY and other places $3.00 of tax on pack up there I think.
:eek2:
Down south it 30 cent plus sales tax. Here a cartoon of premiums is $23, 10 packs.
:thumb: :D
*time to light one*
Bodwad the one time you drove round the corner to the shops rather than walking produced more deadly fumes than a smoker ever would.
Never have done that :afrog:
I am not talking global warming I am talking lung cancer :lol:
Maybe this will bring back chewing tobacco?
Instead of ashtrays in the pubs we'll have spitoons :afrog:
Attractive :bigyello:
has anyone got an idea when this will actually become law? :confused:
Me walking around the corner to the shops might produce some deadly fumes as well :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by davebat
I believe in NY State, if someone is caught smoking in a Bar or Restaurant By the cops, then The owner of the establishment is fined 1000 dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
However, in NYS, if an establishment can prove they've lost 30 % in revenue due to the ban, they can apply for exception status.
Another thing.
Of Course, the ban in NYS also includes smoking in any business.
The kicker is if you are a 1 man business, private, no off the street clients, well, you STILL can't smoke inyour place of business.
Oh, AND ALSO:::
This ban does NOT apply to certain Government officials in Govt Buildings like City Hall.
The Mayer's can, and still do, light up.
:wave:
You should charge the mayors off 1000 for every time he has lit up :afrog:
What about workers at home?Quote:
Of Course, the ban in NYS also includes smoking in any business.
The kicker is if you are a 1 man business, private, no off the street clients, well, you STILL can't smoke inyour place of business.
The mayor can do anything that he wants.
Don't they fine the offenders?
What about fast-food restaurants?
Around here they are non-smoking, but people still light up in the washrooms, especially when the weather gets cold.
NOTE: The newest thing around here, to combat people being hit by trains, is that the cops (plainclothes) are ticketing people that cross the tracks when the gates are down. Pedestrians! I've seen people get nabbed running for a train, and also, getting off of a train.
I would think it would apply only to building registered as offices
If you get fined for smoking in a non smoking place, do you have to put out your f a g or have you just paid for the privilige of smoking it?
You Avater has the answer to where it will go :afrog:
A pack of cigs here is between £4.00 and £5.00 nearer the £5 quid mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
With the dollar depreciating so fast I can't tell you how much it is in dollars - but I would guess at just under $10 a pack.
Pack of cigs £4, pint of lager £2.....Hmmmmmm......think I'll have the pint thank you very much :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Thanks for the little dig about our dollar. Maybe we can deficit spend our way back to fiscal responsibility.....or maybe not.
You kidding, your tourist industry is thriving because of the weakness of the dollar at the moment.
It's been a stroke of genius by the Federal government to keep it weak as now everyone is flocking to the US for a holiday. Although why I'd want to subject myself to the humilation of being photographed, fingerprint ID'd, and generally have everything else but have me strip naked....for a holiday is totally beyond me. :confused:
I am thinking of getting Gamespace while the pound is so good against the Dollar :D
* Yes, some amount, I think < 100 $Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
** The Funny thing about FFR's, before the ban, I believe most of them decided that they'd make more money if you get in and get out as fast as possible. Therefore, if you're sitting around smoking, then They're losing money. So they determined that their FFR's would not allow smoking.
Its a funny concept, a private establishment setting their own smoking preferances instead of being forced by the Gov't, isn't it?
And the idea that people have free will to choose to decide to go to restaurants or bars that don't allow smoking if it offends them is just so Radical! Why should an establishement have the right to decide if they should allow smoking or not on their own is beyond me. Isn't great that the Gov'ts are taking away those freedoms for private businesses? No one should have the freedom to partake in any activity involving legal substances without the Gov't deciding for you exactly where you are allowed to do so.
I mean, when they decided to force establishments that allowed smoking to have smoking and non-smoking areas, I just knew someone screwed up big time making those laws.
***Not even in Washrooms can they light up. Public yet enclosed, dontcha know.
**** I hope they at least wait until the Pedestrian makes it across!
:wave:
-Lou
The only worry is that USD is the only reserve currency at the moment - the GBP was once and that put Britain in a downward trend when it depreciated post war for 30 years. But Britain didn't and still doesn't have that much influence on thesematters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The US - well that's a different matter - even oil prices are given in USD.
There will be trouble ahead
(no matter how many tourists go to Florida)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4113989.stm
I hope we ban mobile phones in public places too.
You speaking into your mobile phone does not harm the DNA of someone standing 5 foot away from you. Smoking five foot from someone does harm them.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Big difference
:D
Perhaps - if you're in a five foot square cupboard. One also assumes you know the intensity of the microwave (OK just sub-microwave which makes it radio) of a mobile phone at five feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I'd like to see your calculations.
By Michael CrichtonQuote:
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science?.there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings?a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
everyone i speak to in pubs, including smokers welcome the ban. The non-smokers because they simply don't like breathing it in and smelling of smoke at the end of the night.
The smokers want the ban because it will help them to have a better night out and help them to quit.
The ban is coming because the majority (who happen to be non-smokers) want it to happen
I think you're right. It has nothing to do with risks, health-wise or otherwise. It is simply that non-smokers do not like the smell. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Dam right I hate the smell but it does concern me when it comes down to health issues :afrog:
What known health risks are there? Sources would be helpful, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
If it turns out it is just the smell - then can I legislate against your deodorant?
If so many are in favour of a smoking ban, why are there so few establishments that are smoke free?
Nobody knows the risk of mobile phones although we are warned we still use them! Why because it would remove a valuable asset from those addicted to them.
I cant see how standing in a smoky environment can be healthy. I dont know if its backed up yet
if I wore deodorant you could ;) :lol:
Its seems that you have only spoken to people who don't smoke and don't really want to smoke? What about the people who want to smoke, even though they know its bad for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Two of my friends are somkers who don't want to quit but they appreciate our side of the story and know they'd save a fortune every weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by john tindell
They would probably be a massive minority anyway, so would probably be overruled.
With the success of California, New York and Ireland I can't see it not happening
What success? Do you mean legislating against a free people is a success? I suspect you mean that non-smokers no longer have to deal with second-hand smoke . . . which is fair enough (I do not smoke in the company of non-smokers)
What I object to is the legislating against a free people engaged in a fully legal action.
In order to philosophically resolve this (in my mind) it must lead to the following: Do NOT ban smoking in public places, or make the action of smoking illegal. I have argued that smoking is a fiscal necessity in the UK so without major financial and economic turmoil, a complete ban will never happen.
It is therefore with regret I have to conclude that this action is a political spin gesture in order to secure the votes of those 'who just don't like the smell'
Don't forget that pubs and clubs will be exempt from this legislation which is when most people smoke. The only times you cannot smoke in a pub is when the pub is serving food.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The whole Ban smoking thing is just part of the governments long term plans to dictate every aspect of how we live our lives. I heard a rumour that there is going to be a bill passed that will mean a 5 year sentence if you don't eat your Brussell Sprouts, with an additional 2 years if this happens at Christmas.
Didn't our Grandfathers fight in the second world war to stop this sort of thing?