Smoking in Scotland

[Everose]

Scotsman (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663)


I have been following the smoking ban in certain places in Scotland. What are the view and concerns of people in Scotland, and England about this?

I am a sometimes smoker that doesn't smoke in public because of the secondhand smoke issue.

Do you think this will have any effect on the pubs?

[Biggles]

Scotsman (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663)


I have been following the smoking ban in certain places in Scotland. What are the view and concerns of people in Scotland, and England about this?

I am a sometimes smoker that doesn't smoke in public because of the secondhand smoke issue.

Do you think this will have any effect on the pubs?

As someone who has given up smoking I am fairly content with the proposals. My local actually has two rooms, one of which is non-smoking. Unforunately the TVs to watch the Rugby and Football are in the other. :dry:

There may be some drop off in drinking, but then given the alcohol consumption in Scotland this might not be an entirely bad thing.

I really don't like people lighting up in restaurants as most are not large enough to effectively segregate. Most other public places, offices, galleries, shops etc., are already non-smoking so it shouldn't make much difference.

I think if pubs could effectively segregate and have two rooms - a smokers bar and a non-smokers bar then that should suffice. The bill is in an early stage and is not clear where it will go - but the Irish example looks like being the template and that appears to have had little impact on the bar trade.

[Everose]

As someone who has given up smoking I am fairly content with the proposals. My local actually has two rooms, one of which is non-smoking. Unforunately the TVs to watch the Rugby and Football are in the other. :dry:

There may be some drop off in drinking, but then given the alcohol consumption in Scotland this might not be an entirely bad thing.

I really don't like people lighting up in restaurants as most are not large enough to effectively segregate. Most other public places, offices, galleries, shops etc., are already non-smoking so it shouldn't make much difference.

I think if pubs could effectively segregate and have two rooms - a smokers bar and a non-smokers bar then that should suffice. The bill is in an early stage and is not clear where it will go - but the Irish example looks like being the template and that appears to have had little impact on the bar trade.


**********************************************************

I would think it would be financially hard for the pubs to have two sections, but that is the way a lot of restaurants are here. Some of the restaurants in my state ban smoking until after the dinner is served and families have left and then allow it. Others have one big room, which has a smoking section in it. I don't think this usually protects non smokers as much as they like to think. You would have to install a big exhaust fan over the smokers for it not to. ;)

What about the price of a pack of cigarettes in Scotland? $2.60 to almost $4.00 here. And the state is planning to tax them even further......with tax being used to help finance state health plans.

[Biggles]

I think a packet of 20 costs about £4.00 these days - which is about $7.25

[Everose]

I think a packet of 20 costs about £4.00 these days - which is about $7.25



:ohmy: Wow. Is there a heavy tax on them?

[vidcc]

I would think it would be financially hard for the pubs to have two sections,

What about the price of a pack of cigarettes in Scotland? $2.60 to almost $4.00 here. And the state is planning to tax them even further......with tax being used to help finance state health plans.

Many British pubs have 2 bars already, one for the "lads" and one for the "gentlemen".... this i noticed is changing with modernisation... so the cost of seperate bars would be not too significant.

the price i am not sure of being a non smoker but i believe it is close to $10 at todays exchange rate for a pack of 20..wg=hen we have friends over from the uk they can't believe how cheap it is to smoke here

i support the ban in public places fully because it isn't a personal habit of the smoker alone.

[Biggles]

:ohmy: Wow. Is there a heavy tax on them?

Absolutely enormous.

It is of course purely in the interests of encouraging the smokers to give up (the fact that demand for an addictive product is inelastic has not even been noticed at the Treasury :whistling )

Edit: saw Vidcc's post and checked. I am out of date, the average is about $8.50 rising to about $10.00 for the more expensive brands.


Likewise, we pay a large tax on petrol to encourage ust to use more economical cars - currently about $7.00 a gallon (although our gallons are slightly larger). This works to some extent - I am very fond of my 42 miles to the gallon car :)

[Everose]

Many British pubs have 2 bars already, one for the "lads" and one for the "gentlemen".... this i noticed is changing with modernisation... so the cost of seperate bars would be not too significant.

the price i am not sure of being a non smoker but i believe it is close to $10 at todays exchange rate for a pack of 20

i support the ban in public places fully because it isn't a personal habit of the smoker alone.


I agree with you Vidcc. I am a smoker myself, but don't go into smoking sections because it is too smokey in there. I think it ruins the meals of people who don't smoke. Mostly I smoke on my own porch or deck because I really don't like much of it in my house.

Don't like it in my own lungs, either.....I hope to toss them soon. ;)

[Everose]

Absolutely enormous.

It is of course purely in the interests of encouraging the smokers to give up (the fact that demand for an addictive product is inelastic has not even been noticed at the Treasury :whistling )


Likewise, we pay a large tax on petrol to encourage ust to use more economical cars - currently about $7.00 a gallon (although our gallons are slightly larger). This works to some extent - I am very fond of my 42 miles to the gallon car :)


And people are complaining here because our petrol is $1.90 a gallon, with a lot of road tax thrown in. My little car gets 54 miles to the gallon. In my city we have an alcohol plant which produces ethanol with outdated crop seed, such as corn, milo, wheat.....really any kind of grain. They do a lot of business, and are enlarging every day. I would like to see more of this done.

[Biggles]

Good idea Everose. It is time to toss the fags, you know it makes sense.

:shifty:

Not quite sure how that translates having crossed teh pond.

:lol:

[Rat Faced]

I think a packet of 20 costs about £4.00 these days - which is about $7.25

Closer to £5

£4.81 for Lambert and Butler

Which is why i rarely buy them over the counter now.

[vidcc]

It is time to toss the fags.

not sure if you realise just how funny that is in the USA :lol:

But as this isn't the lounge i shall not go further :lol:

[vidcc]

:huh:

[Biggles]

:naughty:

Carry on. (Which is quite appropriate}

We were discussing the bannage of smoking in public places in Scotland. A side helping of the high rates of Excise Duty in the UK and reason for such. Given Paul's comment I suspect we may have drifted towards the harmonization of Duty Rates across the European Trade Area.

Certainly, I took RF's comments to suggest that he was in the vanguard of the latter.

[Everose]

Good idea Everose. It is time to toss the fags, you know it makes sense.





Thank you Mr. Fugley. I do know, as I have quit often and always feel better after awhile. And I appreciate your pointing this out to me, it means even more because you have been there and know the psychological and physical addiction. Tis said it is harder than heroin to give up. No excuse though, as I have quit before. Tis just the pits!!!!! :D

[DanB]

Duty free stuff is a lifesaver, luckily my parents normally go away 2 or 3 times a year and bring me stuff back.

Last year I didn't have to buy any from a shop :D

[Everose]

Closer to £5

£4.81 for Lambert and Butler

Which is why i rarely buy them over the counter now.




Uhm.....I understand what you are saying....parcel post works for me. :blushing:

[lynx]

I gave up 4 years ago, so I've no personal axe to grind. I fully support a ban on smoking in totally public places. But restaurants and public houses are not that. They are neither owned nor subsidised by the state, yet the state demands the right to control what free citizens do with their property.

More than this, many of those who support these bans do not frequent the establishments they wish to control, that hardly seems fair. There has been no serious attempt at finding a compromise solution. It has been argued that public houses have not made any attempt in that direction either, but given the fact that threats of this sort of ban have been around for a while who would invest in equipment to extract smoke when they could find that within a short period of time there are no smokers anyway.

Is there any sane reason why, if the state is allowed to make some sort of restriction, they can't say that 50% (for example) of the "public" area must be smoke free. And when I say smoke free I don't just mean without smokers, I mean that smoke from smoking areas does not contaminate this area. Obviously it would also be necessary to be able to use major facilities (entry ways, bars, toilets etc) without entering a smoking area.

Private members clubs will not be affected by the proposed bans, because they are treated as an extension of a members home, therefore Human Rights legislation comes in to play. I can easily foresee a large increase in membership of such clubs, and even some public houses becoming private members clubs.

It amazes me that so many are willing to restrict the freedom of others with so little thought. What will be next? Alcohol? That does far more harm to non-participants than smoking. Do I hear the same calls for a ban on that from those who have been so vocal in this thread?

[bigboab]

Lets take the smoking out of the pubs and put it in the houses. That way the kids will suffer from secondary smoking.:( Sounds like a bad idea too me.

Incidentally where did the 'large' public consultation on the subject take place? On the back of doctors prescriptions.:cool: So they were asking people who already had something medically wrong with them. Sounds like a good idea to me, if I wanted to get 'public' backing.

Before I am 'attacked'. I dont smoke. Nobody in the house smokes. I hate it when I visit someone who smokes, or they visit me. You have to get your clothes washed/aired afterwards.

Anyone driving their kids to the school in the morning puts more 'shit' into the atmosphere than the occupants of their whole street cause by smoking. But the government wont tackle that 'head on'. Too much tax involved. Just as they did not tackle smoking 50 years ago. Because then there was too much tax involved. They did know about the hazards of smoking 50 years ago. They were calling cigarettes 'cancer sticks' when I was at school.

Finally, how many people have now ignored the early warning about mobile phones? Another conveniently forgotten risk because everyone is now using these 'Pratt Sticks' as I call them.:(

Right that is my sermon for today. I hope you enjoy the rest of the week.:)

[vidcc]

I agree with you Boab, however i have to say that 2 wrongs don't make a right and just because something else needs "fixing" and isn't being fixed doesn't excuse a different "bad thing". All those issues you raised should also be addressed

[Everose]

I gave up 4 years ago, so I've no personal axe to grind. I fully support a ban on smoking in totally public places. But restaurants and public houses are not that. They are neither owned nor subsidised by the state, yet the state demands the right to control what free citizens do with their property.

More than this, many of those who support these bans do not frequent the establishments they wish to control, that hardly seems fair. There has been no serious attempt at finding a compromise solution. It has been argued that public houses have not made any attempt in that direction either, but given the fact that threats of this sort of ban have been around for a while who would invest in equipment to extract smoke when they could find that within a short period of time there are no smokers anyway.

Is there any sane reason why, if the state is allowed to make some sort of restriction, they can't say that 50% (for example) of the "public" area must be smoke free. And when I say smoke free I don't just mean without smokers, I mean that smoke from smoking areas does not contaminate this area. Obviously it would also be necessary to be able to use major facilities (entry ways, bars, toilets etc) without entering a smoking area.

Private members clubs will not be affected by the proposed bans, because they are treated as an extension of a members home, therefore Human Rights legislation comes in to play. I can easily foresee a large increase in membership of such clubs, and even some public houses becoming private members clubs.

It amazes me that so many are willing to restrict the freedom of others with so little thought. What will be next? Alcohol? That does far more harm to non-participants than smoking. Do I hear the same calls for a ban on that from those who have been so vocal in this thread?


I understand your view, Lynx, and many smokers in this country are very vigilant and vocal about this. I guess I feel guilty for smoking around others who do not smoke, so, as I said in my first post, I rarely smoke in a public place so the bans don't really effect me. I have a right to smoke, but I don't have a right to force others to do so also. Drinking, I feel, is done only to oneself, while smoking effects the physical bodies of others. imo I am aware that overdrinking all the time does affect other people, too.

[hobbes]

I like to drink, but I do not pour it in your throat nor spill it on your clothing.

Smoking is an invasion of my space.

My clothes smell like crap today because I was out at a club last night. Are those smokers going to come clean my jacket?

If they could smoke, smokelessly then I wouldn't care. But I am fully in support of banning something that interferes with others.

It to me is an extension of civil rights. You can pursue happiness as you please, but your pursuit may not impinge upon the happiness or health of others.

Drinking responsibly bothers no one, smoking responsibly does.

[DanB]

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

[ruthie]

Hmmm. I am a smoker, and I fully back smoking bans in restaurants, though I wish I could smoke there anyway...however, no one should have to breathe in my smoke..that's my addiction, not theirs. Cigarette smoke does stink..we only smoke inone room of the house. Our target date to quit is in Jan. This past year, I stopped for three months. It's a nasty, dirty, unhealthy habit, and we have no right to endanger others health, regardless of the fact we ignore our own.

[vidcc]

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?
I agree, but as i said before 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Should i be allowed to stab anyone on sight because other people use guns ?:no:

[lynx]

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

[Everose]

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?




Yes, I disagree. I prefer, as you say, to have totally separate rooms, totally seperate ventilation. I know this would put a lot of small businesses out of business, though, due to the expense.

[hobbes]

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

I drive on roads, where cars are intended to operate. I don't drive on the sidewalk you walk on.

If you want to talk about pollution, that is part of the risk/benefit ratio of living in a community. Cars are one piece to this very large puzzle.

There is no risk/benefit scenario with smoking.

[lynx]

Yes, I disagree. I prefer, as you say, to have totally separate rooms, totally seperate ventilation. I know this would put a lot of small businesses out of business, though, due to the expense. Those that can't afford the expense still have the option of being totally non-smoking.

Of course, the truth about the "success" of the Irish experience has yet to be seen, the smokers who have to stand outside still have to experience it during winter. If the coming winter is as harsh as has been predicted, I can't see them being quite as accepting. Mind you, if it really is that bad they probably won't be able to get to the pub anyway. No, forget that last bit, they always find a way to get to the pub.

[Biggles]

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

I am content with whatever solution leaves the air I breathe smoke free. If this can accommodate smokers then a compromise proposition should be considered. The Bill has a little way to go before it is law and I would presume it will follow the normal consultative phase.

As Rose said, though, the small free house may not be able to install whatever it takes to achieve a smoke free atmosphere for customers and staff.

[manker]

Just 2 days ago I visited the hypnotist for the second time this year to give up the evil weed, last time I went for 6 months without smoking, this time I hope it is for good.

I am as biased as hell and make no apologies - I want a total ban on cigarettes. They do no-one any good apart from the manufacturers and depending on which statistics you look at, cost the treasury more in health care than they rake in thro' Excise Duty and V.A.T.

If they are in Newsagents winking at me - yes they do - while I buy a Newspaper and in my friends hands while I'm drinking in pubs then my personal battle will never be over. Ban them, ban then today.

[hobbes]

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?


I see what you are saying lynx. I think that any establishment that wishes to create a "smoking" area that is completely separate from the "non-smoking" area, they should have that right.

Is that what you were complaining about? Instead of a flat ban, make all places smoke-free, but allow the option to create a smoking area?

I do not know the particulars of the original article as the link requires me to register for the full article.

I think compromise is usually a good way to approach something.

[DanB]

I drive on roads, where cars are intended to operate. I don't drive on the sidewalk you walk on.

If you want to talk about pollution, that is part of the risk/benefit ratio of living in a community. Cars are one piece to this very large puzzle.

There is no risk/benefit scenario with smoking.


Its got nothing to do with driving on the pavement :lol:

I breathe in exhasut fumes just as you would breathe in my second hand smoke. But because cars are a benefit to society it is okay for us to breathe in ?

Oh well, I don't live in Scotland and its still just being muttered about here


edit - manker that would probably be the best way to do it but of course we know they won't due to the large amount of taxes it brings in

[lynx]

There is no risk/benefit scenario with smoking.
And the risk/benefit scenario of alcohol is ???

[hobbes]

Its got nothing to do with driving on the pavement :lol:

I breathe in exhasut fumes just as you would breathe in my second hand smoke. But because cars are a benefit to society it is okay for us to breathe in ?

Oh well, I don't live in Scotland and its still just being muttered about here

Yes, it is.

You don't need to drive a car to experience the benefits of one. How do you think all that fresh produce gets to the city everyday?

Ironically, after you get hit by a car, a smoke belching ambulance may come to save your life. :)

[hobbes]

And the risk/benefit scenario of alcohol is ???

There is none, if handled responsibily. My drinking will never impact upon you in any way. If I am drunk, that is illegal in public.

[lynx]

Just 2 days ago I visited the hypnotist for the second time this year to give up the evil weed, last time I went for 6 months without smoking, this time I hope it is for good.

I am as biased as hell and make no apologies - I want a total ban on cigarettes. They do no-one any good apart from the manufacturers and depending on which statistics you look at, cost the treasury more in health care than they rake in thro' Excise Duty and V.A.T.


If they are in Newsagents winking at me - yes they do - while I buy a Newspaper and in my friends hands while I'm drinking in pubs then my personal battle will never be over. Ban them, ban then today.I think this is a different argument altogether. However, for many the same would apply to alcohol. But given that neither is likely to happen soon (I think someone tried the alcohol ban with stunning failure :whistling ) I can't see it has much bearing on this discussion.

Edit: just realised what time it is. I'm off for some alcohol and second-hand smoke. :rolleyes:

[hobbes]

I agree, but as i said before 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Should i be allowed to stab anyone on sight because other people use guns ?:no:


Vidcc,

Lets run the logic of this by Busyman to see if it makes sense. :D

[Rat Faced]

The point chaps is that smoking has no redeeming features, for the smoker or anyone else.



Makes me feel better... :P

Although i admit, if i actually managed to give it up at some point id feel better again ;)

[hobbes]

Makes me feel better... :P

Although i admit, if i actually managed to give it up at some point id feel better again ;)


You would feel better because you would be frigging rich. All that money you would save.

Smoking is the best habit I never started.

Are we allowed to drink on the forum, I'm about to start.

[Everose]

Lynx......do you have a good link to a newspaper in Ireland? I would like one.

I can tell you from experience, as one who has smoked outside during a snowstorm...........you aren't out there long. I think the breathing of the cold air as you smoke doubles the nicotine to your brain!!! :D


But I have a very silly theory. Could some of the health problems attributed to smokers themselves be attributed to very cold air getting in the lungs due to having to smoke out in the very cold air? :blushing: And that type of thinking is one very big rationalization, I know. :lol:

[Cheese]

If this was brought in England (and it will probably happen) I can still nip out the pub for a smoke outside though?

Bit of a bother but perhaps I'll smoke less on a night out.

What about beer gardens? :unsure:

[Biggles]

If this was brought in England (and it will probably happen) I can still nip out the pub for a smoke outside though?

Bit of a bother but perhaps I'll smoke less on a night out.

What about beer gardens? :unsure:

Beer Gardens are exempt as far as I know.

[Cheese]

Beer Gardens are exempt as far as I know.


Sweet.

I can see beer gardens getting popular even when the weather is cloudy and cold... :D

[manker]

I think this is a different argument altogether. However, for many the same would apply to alcohol. But given that neither is likely to happen soon (I think someone tried the alcohol ban with stunning failure :whistling ) I can't see it has much bearing on this discussion.
But of course. I am trying to introduce a different view to the discussion, that of someone who is trying to stop smoking but finds it difficult because of the availability of cigarettes.

I did mantion in my post that I realise that the total ban view is biased but I hoped that despite this it may make some realise that if smoking was banned in public places then it would make the battle to give up smoking that bit more managable.

They will still wink at me from behind the counter in the Newsagents but I will not have it blown in my face while having a quiet pint or seven.

[DanB]

But of course. I am trying to introduce a different view to the discussion, that of someone who is trying to stop smoking but finds it difficult because of the availability of cigarettes.

I did mantion in my post that I realise that the total ban view is biased but I hoped that despite this it may make some realise that if smoking was banned in public places then it would make the battle to give up smoking that bit more managable.

They will still wink at me from behind the counter in the Newsagents but I will not have it blown in my face while having a quiet pint or seven.

But would you stay in the pub on your own while all your mates went out for a fag? :unsure:

[manker]

But would you stay in the pub on your own while all your mates went out for a fag? :unsure:I think I mentioned to you before but out of all the people who usually go out of a Friday or Saturday, there are probably only about 4 or 5 smokers out of 20 or so. An unusual percentage but ... ehh.

[Cheese]

I think I mentioned to you before but out of all the people who usually go out of a Friday or Saturday, there are probably only about 4 or 5 smokers out of 20 or so. An unusual percentage but ... ehh.

That is strange.

All my friends smoke. Yup, both of them.

But seriously my local almost everyone smokes (bar-staff included), will be very strange if none of us are allowed to. We'll have the whole pub standing in the street like chavs...

[hobbes]

But would you stay in the pub on your own while all your mates went out for a fag? :unsure:

So gays are not allowed in bars?

[DanB]

I think I mentioned to you before but out of all the people who usually go out of a Friday or Saturday, there are probably only about 4 or 5 smokers out of 20 or so. An unusual percentage but ... ehh.


ah, you should know my memory isn't the greatest :blushing:

I rescind the question then :frusty:

[manker]

So gays are not allowed in bars?:D :lol:

I did let that go because we're in teh serious part of the board. Bad hobbes.

[hobbes]

:D :lol:

I did let that go because we're in teh serious part of the board. Bad hobbes.

:blushing:

I'll be in the lounge if you need me.

Anyway, we were talking about smoking in public places, I believe.....

[bigboab]

Beer Gardens are exempt as far as I know.How many people smoke beer gardens?:wacko:

[jetje]

If so many people want complete smoke free places, why don't pubs, restaurants do as the public asks? just a sign on the front smoke free.
But also give people the right to have smoking places.
That way people can choose where they wanna be, they're free to choose themself. If the majority wants smoke free i'm pretty sure that almost all clubs/pubs and restaurants will turn smoke free.... just because they want to attract people

But the dictatorship of the non smokers probably try to prevent that, just because they know that smoking places will always be more fun to visit, then places that the saltless non smoking Jerks visit. :nuke:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Lynx......do you have a good link to a newspaper in Ireland? I would like one.

Jetje once posted a fantastic link to a site that linked to newspapers across the globe. Unfortunatly I lost it in a crash, so maybe we could be lucky and have him post this again, I am sure some of us would be greatly appreciated.


If so many people want complete smoke free places, why don't pubs, restaurants do as the public asks? just a sign on the front smoke free.
But also give people the right to have smoking places.
That way people can choose where they wanna be, they're free to choose themself. If the majority wants smoke free i'm pretty sure that almost all clubs/pubs and restaurants will turn smoke free.... just because they want to attract people

The problem with this is that the majority of people who are chanting for a smoking ban do not in fact visit these places anyway. It seems that these people get a profound ego boost when they are able to control others to such a degree.

[clocker]

I see two problems with the way the "smoke-free" environments are being forced down our throats.

Firstly, the object group ( in this case, smokers) are demonized/marginalized as morally or socially deficient, thus making it easier and more palatable to slap them with sin-taxes.
Personally, I dislike chewing gum...I'd love to see a public ban on that disgusting habit. Does my dislike give me the right to look down MY nose at the practisioners?
And please, DO NOT get me started on Spandex....

Secondly, the tax is regressive...if it works as planned the tax base shrinks, yet the state's need for the income does not, so it must find another group to soak for the money.
It's easy to scorn those who use tobacco ( or alcohol) so it's easy to justify taxing them unfairly, but when they are gone who takes up the tax burden next?

Finally, there are the egregious examples of "political correctness" ( one of J2's favorite sore spots).
In Boulder, CO., a cigar bar was forced to implement a non-smoking area.
C'mon, get real.

As an unrepentant smoker I can appreciate and accomodate the desires of the majority and make every effort not to inflict my vice upon them, but I've had it up to here with the moral superiority inflicted upon me in the form of sin taxes and restrictions.

Bah, humbug.

[Rat Faced]

:01: :01: :01: :01:

[vidcc]

clocker

as a non smoker i don't want to stop you smoking, i just want to stop having to involuntarily smoke.
i don't see you as "demonized/marginalized as morally or socially deficient" or look down upon you for your habit. i do feel sympathy for the considerate smoker, however you must admit that there are a huge amount of inconsiderate smokers and they are the ones that have brought this issue to the forefront by their inconsiderate actions.

The gum issue i will stand with you... I remember what the statue of liberty was like before the ban on gum...that and i hate the noise from people that chew with their mouth open.

[clocker]

as a non smoker i don't want to stop you smoking, i just want to stop having to involuntarily smoke.
K, fine by me.

however you must admit that there are a huge amount of inconsiderate smokers and they are the ones that have brought this issue to the forefront by their inconsiderate actions.
Actually, no.
I don't know many ( or any, for that matter) such people.
I'm sure they exist, but I don't see this happening myself.
What I DO experience firsthand is the totally unsolicited advice from strangers who feel compelled to lecture me on the evils of smoking and what I should do to improve myself.

I am obligated ( nay, forced) to put up with this from my mother, but from strangers....no.

[hobbes]

K, fine by me.

Actually, no.
I don't know many ( or any, for that matter) such people.
I'm sure they exist, but I don't see this happening myself.
What I DO experience firsthand is the totally unsolicited advice from strangers who feel compelled to lecture me on the evils of smoking and what I should do to improve myself.

I am obligated ( nay, forced) to put up with this from my mother, but from strangers....no.

Point 1:
It is kind of like foreigners condescending attitude when they tell you how you should run your country and who you should elect. The old moral highground.

Even if they have a point, it certainly makes one a wee bit defensive. Who the hell are you to tell me what to do?


Point2:

About peoples attitude toward smokers, cry me an ashtry, smokie the bear.
(Not a constructive or helpful point, I just thought it sounded funny, so there.)

[bigboab]

Its all a big con.:) They are going to ban smoking everywhere so that they can legalize the use of marijuana.:ermm:


@ Clocker! egregious ? :wacko:

[vidcc]

Actually, no.
I don't know many ( or any, for that matter) such people.
I'm sure they exist, but I don't see this happening myself.
.
Perhaps as a smoker you don't notice it as much.




What I DO experience firsthand is the totally unsolicited advice from strangers who feel compelled to lecture me on the evils of smoking and what I should do to improve myself.

I am obligated ( nay, forced) to put up with this from my mother, but from strangers....no
well i've never seen anyone (apart from health adverts, doctors etc.) lecture a smoker in public of the harm they are doing to themselves.... although i have seen (once) a non smoker in a resturaunt have a go at someone that lit up and the smoke was wafting over his table ( funny how it always heads for the non smokers :blink: ) if a smoker wants to smoke i am all for that...they must not blame the tabacco industry for the incured illnesses... and please let me be smoke free.

There are 2 sides to the arguement "why should i not smoke when i am out"... the smoker has a choice...the passive smoker doesn't, so why should the non smoker give up their social life because they don't want to smoke?

You as a considerate smoker may do everything in your power to be considerate, but you can't control where the smoke ends up once it's left you.

[hobbes]

Its all a big con.:) They are going to ban smoking everywhere so that they can legalize the use of marijuana.:ermm:


@ Clocker! egregious ? :wacko:

And make gay wolf sex mandatory.

http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos/AttackAd

[bigboab]

And make gay wolf sex mandatory.

http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos/AttackAd
I hate to disillusion you Hobbes. But I have this strange feeling that those 'wolves' are not real. There is a possibility that they have had human bodies transplanted on them by the use of Photoshop.:(

But dont let that stop you from dreaming about them.:rolleyes:

[Barbarossa]

They are going to ban smoking everywhere so that they can legalize the use of marijuana.:ermm:


This is a great idea, cos then they can tax it, and fill the hole that less tobacco use will create... :D

Since I partake of neither, and both will be banned from public spaces, I couldn't give a shit..

[bigboab]

Bigboab
They are going to ban smoking everywhere so that they can legalize the use of marijuana

This is a great idea, cos then they can tax it, and fill the hole that less tobacco use will create... :D

Since I partake of neither, and both will be banned from public spaces, I couldn't give a shit..
Doing puns now barbie?:lol: :lol:

[lynx]

Seems like we are to have some sort of ban in England & Wales too. However, smoking will be allowed in pubs which do not sell food. This seems like a reasonable compromise, but somehow I have a feeling it won't be enough for the rabid anti-smoking lobbyists.

[bigboab]

I think they should ban chewing gum while they are at it. Someone is going to bring out, if not already, tobacco flavoured chewing gum. As if the streets and seats of cinemas, trains and buses are not enough of a mess with the stuff already.:ph34r:

[Rat Faced]

Seems like we are to have some sort of ban in England & Wales too. However, smoking will be allowed in pubs which do not sell food. This seems like a reasonable compromise, but somehow I have a feeling it won't be enough for the rabid anti-smoking lobbyists.

In otherwords...

Suburban "Locals" will have the ban, while the younger party pubs in the Towns/Cities dont...

[MagicNakor]

They've already banned smoking in most public buildings here. There was no great upcry about it, since the smokers can go outside if they want. It's not just for the health of the general public, but for the health of the people who have to work eight hours in a pub. Even if they didn't smoke, they would be subjected to breathing it in each day.

:shuriken:

[vidcc]

I once had an employee that insisted that because we had a no smoking on the premises policy he had the right to leave for a "drag" and not just during breaks. He thought he was being discriminated against. He didn't make it past his probabtion.

[Afronaut]

Then again:

http://www.searchlores.org/images/imisslun.jpg

There's money lost on sales, but also gained.

/me lights up a Marlboro

Imo: the good (less cancer) outweights the bad (tax on sales)

Only time will tell how things pan out, as usual.

The lost Tax-income will be added on other "goods", but I think the
money saved on a long run when ppl stops, or dont begin smoking
can be big numbers too, no?

Less dieing sounds good to me. I could live with that.

:)

[Afronaut]

My post above seems a little out of place, but there was a mention about the
losses on Taxes if the sales of smokes drops dramatically/suddenly.

I say the Companys who makes the smokes should get a Big Part of the Tax Cake.

And of course the loss would be panned out as Tax on other goods. But there would be savings also, is all im saying.

About the smoking outside, we got the Law in here (Norway) too, no smoking in Pubs,
and basically, It dont shake my boat at all, I can go outside and smoke.

It is a first winter under the Law and it will be interesting to see how many pubs
survive if there's a drop on sales as ppl dont go there no more.

It rains here a lot, I think the pub with some sort of Roof in front has better chance to survive.
The smokers dont want to get wet, especially the Ladies, what with the Make up and all that.

Me? After few beers I really dont care.
(thats the way it works, hehehe...and im not made of sugar)

I have a feeling this Law might be a step on a series of actions to
make ppl realise how stoopid The Smoking Habit is.
I dint think its smart to Cut The Smokes in a one swift move, (Teh Law)
I wish there never was Sigarettes to begin with.
;)

[lynx]

Does it make me rabid because I do not wish to breathe the smoke of others, I think not.

Smoke if you want, enjoy it night and day. That's a mater for you, so long as you don't impose it on other people.

Just don't do it where you force others to do it as well. If society chooses to provide non-smokers with protection from that horrendous and noxious substance, great.

We speak of human rights often. I consider the most basic of these to be clean air. So, tough if you want to preserve your right to smoke anywhere you want. I want to breathe anywhere I want, it's really not a great deal to ask for.

Is that PC enough for everyone.
I did not say that all non-smokers were rabid, nor did I suggest that your right to breath fresh air should be infringed. However, you do not have a right to go anywhere you want. Have you complained about not being allowed into ammunition dumps? These are guaranteed non-smoking areas. Take the matter up with your MP, demand your rights.

When there are places which you may have to visit, such as public buildings, I completely agree that they should be smoke free. By and large I think the same is true in places where food is served, although I can see no reason why the same restriction has to apply to parts of the same establishment which have a totally separate function.

If you choose to visit somewhere you have to put up with the conditions which the OWNER decides are acceptable, it is his/her choice, not yours. If he/she decides to sell dung-flavour beer, do you have the right to demand that it is stopped, because it offends your sensibilities? Or would you simply stay away? If that establishment chooses to permit smoking, you have the right not to visit that establishment. If you don't visit your right to clean air isn't compromised. Why should you have the right to demand that the owner accepts your conditions?

[lynx]

Drink dung flavoured beer if you want. So long as I don't have to taste it then it is no business of mine. However if I find the smell to be offensive then yes I will complain about it. That's fair enough. If my Government then decide that dung flavoured beer should be banned in public places, then 1 up for the good guys.

Why would I wish to go into an ammunition dump, that's just silly particularly if I were smoking. The whole idea beggars belief.

With regard to the OWNER having total say on what he can and can't sell, or when he can sell it or to whom, that is just specious tosh. We have licensing laws, these impose rules with regard to what can be sold, to whom and for how long. We also have rules regarding environmental health, safety of customers etc. An owner of an establishment catering to the public must keep his kitchen, pipes etc clean and hygienic. To extend these rules to the air is fair and reasonable, at least I think so.
But you were not talking about environmental health, you were talking about your imagined right to dictate to the owner of the premises about what he can and can't do with those premises.

If you don't like what he does with his premises, don't go there. If you feel he should be driven out of business by providing the conditions he doesn't agree with, you are completely at liberty to try - those are your rights.

But get up off your arse and do it with your money, don't expect/force someone else to do it with their's.

Whether you want to go to an ammunition dump is entirely up to you. Whether you have the right to do so is not, yet you seem to think you have certain rights just because premises sell alcohol, why is that?

[lynx]

Just because a majority of people do not like something does not mean we should ban that thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, it is called intolerance, but that's just a polite way of saying bullying.

You responded to my comment which was about pubs and rabid anti-smoking lobby. I already agreed that publicly owned places and establishments serving food should be smoke free. Perhaps you should do a little more reading yourself.

There's still the unanswered question. You seem to think you have certain rights just because premises sell alcohol, why is that?

[lynx]

So you can see no difference between publicly-owned places and privately-owned?

Let's take that concept to it's logical conclusion, how about you share your home, there are plenty of homeless people out there and the government should do something about it. What about your car, government action on transport is one of the big issues of the day.

Or does it only apply when it is someone else's property?

[lynx]

Fudge

[vidcc]

So you can see no difference between publicly-owned places and privately-owned?

Let's take that concept to it's logical conclusion, how about you share your home, there are plenty of homeless people out there and the government should do something about it. What about your car, government action on transport is one of the big issues of the day.

Or does it only apply when it is someone else's property?
A private property that is open to public access for business has no difference to a publicly owned property.
If you choose to take in a vagrant for the night he has to accept your smoking in your house, however if you run a hostal it is a public place the same as a library would be.
if you offer someone a lift in your car they have no right to stop you smoking...if you are a taxi they do.
I can stop people smoking in my house but i can't stop them smoking if i visit theirs.

[vidcc]

To say nothing of what Pub is a contraction for.

Well i was answering the "private property" question but it didn't actually occur to me the "public house" part....

[lynx]

A private property that is open to public access for business has no difference to a publicly owned property.
If you choose to take in a vagrant for the night he has to accept your smoking in your house, however if you run a hostal it is a public place the same as a library would be.
if you offer someone a lift in your car they have no right to stop you smoking...if you are a taxi they do.
I can stop people smoking in my house but i can't stop them smoking if i visit theirs.That is only true if your government happens to word the law in that way. At the moment it certainly is not the case anywhere in the UK with regard to smoking.

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.

If the "surveys" about the wishes of the masses were true, the majority of these places would already be non-smoking. Anyone in such a position who blatantly ignored the wishes of the majority would be committing financial suicide. The fact that this doesn't happen indicates that the results of these surveys are distorted.

[lynx]

Toffee-nosed git.

[vidcc]

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.

.thing is smoking although legal is still a public health hazard.... you can't deny that can you?

one can keep ones kitchen at home as dirty, germ ridden and bug infested as one likes... try that in a business kitchen and your "privately owned property" will be closed to the public.

i do agree that nobody is forced to go into these places.... perhaps all non smokers should boycott

[zedaxax]

I presently live in a country that prohibits
smoking in ALL public arenas

This law was enforced in July (of course)

Since then 1000s of out door terraces have sprung up (with heating)

when you drive home at night you see alot more action outside on the streets xauz the smokers are taking..a smoke amd chatting with each other
this has been benificial to the sex lives of many

this is very benificial to this country (but not me) because its inhabitants tend to hibernate in the winter going from indoors to indoors - hence it is benificial to the Street Life of the bation

it suks moose shit

i luv it when you take a plane to 3rd world country and all is possible

time to move

[summond_skull]

Ban it. Hate smokers. When I'm on the bus I get losers at the back smoking and I'm breathing it in. So their slowly killing me. It should be banned in public places, but pub owners should chose whether they want it banned or not.

[j2k4]

As my colleague Clocker has pointed out, I am frusticated no end by the horrid tactic of political-correctness, which is really nothing more-or-less than social terrorism; insofar as it has been demonstrated in no uncertain terms that smoking is bad for you, and (at a minimum) noisome to others-logic ought to carry the day, and so it does...

There are no tales to be told of "the great cigarette riot" or renegade smoker's-rights groups picketing city hall; it is no great leap to conclude that denial of the destructive/irritating aspects of the habit paint one as having somewhat less than a full string of fish, but...

The expectation that such habits as smoking (or, indeed, any other habit, tradition, practice or more) require the afflicted individual to meekly submit to a social and cultural tarring-and-feathering by a questionable cadre of elitists and "experts" is a manifestation and projection of defective thought and intolerance.

Odd, wouldn't you say, that the ACLU sees fit to defend (for example) NAMBLA, but cannot see it's way clear to give even a nod to smokers?

Smoking, as a habit, will (pardon the pun) die on it's own; perversion will, regrettably, be with us far longer. :(

[lynx]

The problem is that this sort of legislation is the "thin-end of the wedge". It is popular in the case of smoking because over the years smokers have been labelled as pariahs and social outcasts (which is strange because in some sections the make up about a third of the population).

But by allowing this sort of legislation pass unchallenged we give a mandate to the politicians to proceed with the next item on their "political correctness" agenda. Except it isn't really about political correctness, it is about control. Control over the very minutiae of our daily lives.

In the UK, there are already plans to inform us about what we should avoid eating because it is unhealthy. Just in the same way that we were informed about the dangers of smoking. That was followed up by health warnings on packaging of tobacco products. Just in the same way that health warnings are to appear on some alcohol products. Just in the same way that it is proposed that a "traffic lights" system should appear on pre-packed food, health warnings to follow?

Now smoking is to banned in public places, will the alcohol products follow? How about what the "experts" consider unhealthy food? You can be certain that these (and others) are all things your masters are considering.

Tell the politicians to keep their interfering fingers (and in the case of the current government their bloody hands) out of our lives.

[lynx]

I've said before, I don't smoke. Do try to concentrate.

If you are willing to give up your freedom, so be it, but don't insist I give up mine.

When we give up our freedoms it leads to politicians thinking they can do what they want. The result is usually wars where millions die.

Analogous enough for you?

[clocker]

It's a matter of proportionality. My freedom to breathe fresh air is more important than your freedom to smoke in enclosed public places. No one is taking away the freedom to smoke, just to do it where it is particularly dangerous to others.

JP,
Where does your "right" to breathe fresh air end?
Does your worldview allow for the possibility that there are simply some spaces where your preference does not take precedence?
For example...
If there was a pub/restaurant that allowed smoking that happened to serve lasagne that you craved, would your craving ( coupled with your "right" to a smoke-free environment) trump the rights of the other patrons?
Apparently so.

[clocker]

Yes, it does in actual fact. My right to breathe air free from other people's smoke is absolute and final.

My oh my, the view from your high horse must be spectacular.
Have you ever considered exercising your "right" to simply not patronize an establishment that fails to provide an atmosphere you're not comfortable in rather than forcing it to comply with your standards?
The sanctity of your rights to the potential detriment of mine would lead to FugleyWorld would it not?

[lynx]

I'm afraid I could only accept the validity of your point of view if you were to apply it equally to all activities to which people object, no doubt including many of your own. But I don't expect to see you as being as open-minded as that.

[vidcc]

I'm afraid I could only accept the validity of your point of view if you were to apply it equally to all activities to which people object, no doubt including many of your own. But I don't expect to see you as being as open-minded as that.I would be quite prepared to enforce regulations on all activities that adversely affect non participants.
Cars for example.... we have the technology to produce "considerably" less if not zero hazrdous emissions..but we don't because of spineless governments and big business whining about cost.

same goes with industrial poluters...

[clocker]

The whole point is how adversely smoking affects other people and the fact that for the smoker it serves no useful purpose. Indeed it is killing them as well

I see no reason why I should be open minded about this. It is, in my mind similar to something like drunken driving. Sorry but I also reject your freedom to choose to do that.
Sorry, but no.
At least part of the point is that you feel entitled to enforce restrictions upon venues that you are not compelled to frequent.
On the off-chance that JP may, upon a whim, decide to drop into the Cigar Bar, it should be forced to conform to his "smoke free" wishes rather than the desires of the existing patrons,eh?

I see no validity to the comparison with drunken driving either.
As we are ALL compelled to drive on the same public roads, I certainly have no issue with a uniform standard of behaviour, but no one has/is forcing you patronize any specific dispenser of the apple...should one be unsuitable then I'm sure that an alternative is available.

The issue seems to be that you insist that every alternative be available for you personally while restricting, nay obliviating, the alternatives open to others.

[j2k4]

All this banging on with nary a sliver of PCism.

I commend you all.

BTW-lynx: Thanks for standing in as uber-speller. :D

Good nite.

[100%]

cough..

[j2k4]

Seems some of JP Fugley's posts are missing.

[Busyman]

Seems some of JP Fugley's posts are missing.
Oh fuck!!

You know what? Database error my ass!

The fact that that's entirely different account means there has to be a mod mole or back door hack.
:O

Never gave it much thought before.:ermm:

[JPaul]

Seems some of JP Fugley's posts are missing.
Oh fuck!!

You know what? Database error my ass!

The fact that that's entirely different account means there has to be a mod mole or back door hack.
:O

Never gave it much thought before.:ermm:
Copied.

Could someone copy mine in case of a database error.

[j2k4]

Oh fuck!!

You know what? Database error my ass!

The fact that that's entirely different account means there has to be a mod mole or back door hack.
:O

Never gave it much thought before.:ermm:
Copied.

Could someone copy mine in case of a database error.

Done. ;)

Somebody really ought to fix that, ya' know?

[JPaul]

Copied.

Could someone copy mine in case of a database error.

Done. ;)

Somebody really ought to fix that, ya' know?
You'd need a computer professional for that, mate. I don't think a hobbyist could be sure it was sorted properly. Certainly not from a security point of view,

[j2k4]

Done. ;)

Somebody really ought to fix that, ya' know?
You'd need a computer professional for that, mate. I don't think a hobbyist could be sure it was sorted properly. Certainly not from a security point of view,

Too true, but I don't do I.T. security...perhaps I should, eh?
















Know anyone good? :huh:

[Busyman]

I'm not saying it's lynx either.

However, just from a logical standpoint, deletions across a member's multiple accounts = targeted. Deletion of a certain range of posts across said member = targeted.

I, however, would hate that if I was a mod and got into some public tiffs with a member(s) (which would actually be unlikely in those circumstances), that I'd be found guilty of post "erosion" purely based on that.

I am curious as too how the track were covered and would hope that admin would have a record of anything the mod team does. Hell it could've been admin....although I think the admin team was entirely different at the time (besides Entity).

Checks and balances. Admin watches mods, admin watches admin. :devil:

[JPaul]

I'm not saying it's lynx either.

However, just from a logical standpoint, deletions across a member's multiple accounts = targeted. Deletion of a certain range of posts across said member = targeted.

I, however, would hate that if I was a mod and got into some public tiffs with a member(s) (which would actually be unlikely in those circumstances), that I'd be found guilty of post "erosion" purely based on that.

I am curious as too how the track were covered and would hope that admin would have a record of anything the mod team does. Hell it could've been admin....although I think the admin team was entirely different at the time (besides Entity).

Checks and balances. Admin watches mods, admin watches admin. :devil:


Copied.

Could someone copy mine. Database errors can be such a nuisance.

[manker]

Yes the posts were definitely deleted maliciously and certain individuals were targeted.

In other news, Germany has just invaded Poland :o

[Everose]

Dang. I have quit smoking, but after trying to read this thread, I am so confused I think only nicotine can help my brain figure it out.:lol:

[j2k4]

Dang. I have quit smoking, but after trying to read this thread, I am so confused I think only nicotine can help my brain figure it out.:lol:

That's tragic, but in a good way.

Hi, 'rose. :)

[Busyman]

Dang. I have quit smoking, but after trying to read this thread, I am so confused I think only nicotine can help my brain figure it out.:lol:
I think we have the same ban here in Silver Spring, Maryland.

I don't know if there are exceptions, like, you know, "Hey this is a smoke bar. Don't fucking come in if you don't want to inhale da smuck."

You know there'll be some dickhead that comes in and say that it's his right to come in....and make everyone put out the cigs.:dry:

I've always been a non-smoker and think that people that now take up smoking are idiots. However, if they have a spot to enjoy themselves, have a drink, and take a puff, they should be able to do it. I wouldn't think I'd have the right to come in knowing that this has been set aside for them, and fuck it up.

It sounds like to get around this in banned areas that a place would need to offer free "memberships" and have people sign a simple paper that the establishment is a private club that only allows those who smoke (or can deal with smoke) inside.

We can then still watch some dickhead challenge it.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I agree with busy, if a place legally allows smoking and some dickhead comes in and says people should put out their cigarettes then he or she is a fucking dickhead shit for brains fucking cunt bastard.

Also if a place legally bans cigarettes and some dickhead comes in and insists on smoking then he or she is a fuckbastard and should get a fucking kicking and thrown out for it.

That seems fair, well said busy.

[Busyman]

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.
Old post but well said.

Next thing you know, folks won't be able to smoke at home.

Maybe Scotland can ban titty bars. Some dickhead will come in and say that he shouldn't subjected to such nudity and cry about it to lawmakers.

[Barbarossa]

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.
Old post but well said.

Next thing you know, folks won't be able to smoke at home.

Exceptionally good idea, especially if there's a baby in the house.

There's a proven link between smoking and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("cot death"). It's thought that about 80 cot death cases per year in the UK could be prevented by the baby not being exposed to cigarette smoke.

[Busyman]

Old post but well said.

Next thing you know, folks won't be able to smoke at home.

Exceptionally good idea, especially if there's a baby in the house.

There's a proven link between smoking and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("cot death"). It's thought that about 80 cot death cases per year in the UK could be prevented by the baby not being exposed to cigarette smoke.
So is it a good idea, otherwise?

[Barbarossa]

Exceptionally good idea, especially if there's a baby in the house.

There's a proven link between smoking and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("cot death"). It's thought that about 80 cot death cases per year in the UK could be prevented by the baby not being exposed to cigarette smoke.
So is it a good idea, otherwise?

Yes, so good in fact that it should be compulsory. If you are alone in the house you MUST smerk a packet of fags. :wacko:

[Busyman]

So is it a good idea, otherwise?

Yes, so good in fact that it should be compulsory. If you are alone in the house you MUST smerk a packet of fags. :wacko:
Eh? Wtf are you talking about?:stars:

[Barbarossa]

Sorry, I seem to have confused you. Maybe this will help.

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/8508/irony8bk.jpg

[Busyman™]

Sorry, I seem to have confused you. Maybe this will help.

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/8508/irony8bk.jpg
Mmk now that that's outta the way....

So is it otherwise a good idea?

[JPaul]

Maybe Scotland can ban titty bars. Some dickhead will come in and say that he shouldn't subjected to such nudity and cry about it to lawmakers.
Yeah, the same dickhead might get a passive semi and die of a horrible disease after a protracted and painfull illness with his or her friends and family watching it happen.

Some people are so selfish, the fucking dickhead cuntfuckbastards.

[j2k4]

Maybe Scotland can ban titty bars. Some dickhead will come in and say that he shouldn't subjected to such nudity and cry about it to lawmakers.
Yeah, the same dickhead might get a passive semi and die of a horrible disease after a protracted and painfull illness with his or her friends and family watching it happen.

Some people are so selfish, the fucking dickhead cuntfuckbastards.

What you said.

[Everose]

Hi J2:D



Okay, so we ban the titty bar takers, the post stealers and keep the courteous smokers?:D

[j2k4]

Hi J2:D



Okay, so we ban the titty bar takers, the post stealers and keep the courteous smokers?:D

Sounds like a plan, 'cept for that tightass JP.

I think he should "get a room", the antisocial prick. :P

[Skweeky1]

I'm loving the smoking ban.
I quit smoking a couple of months back but I always felt tempted to smoke when having a drink in the pub.
That's not an option now :D

[j2k4]

I'm loving the smoking ban.
I quit smoking a couple of months back but I always felt tempted to smoke when having a drink in the pub.
That's not an option now :D

I understand thoroughly.

It is difficult to find a comprehensively thoughtful context to view the matter when it's impact is felt so personally.

I quit 4 years ago, and from a practical point-of-view, I couldn't care less that others are precluded from the habit, but as an originalist with the all attendent baggage, I have an objection with the issue of accomodation.

I'm torn, and that doesn't happen too often. :)

[Filliz]

My opinion: if the non-smokers are so appalled by smoking in pubs let them build their own smoke free pubs :dry:

Yes - I know - it's a bit self-centric but seeing how non-smokers here (my coutry) talk about the people who do smoke I couldn't care less.
We're being talked about like criminals.

Well - if you want to see smoking banned from public places I demand that those stupid f*cks who drive their car to the shop around the corner, to turn in their car or invest in a clean one (on electricity or whatever) because they're polluting the air I breath as well and thereby increasing the risk of me getting lungcancer because of that.

[JPaul]

I demand that those stupid f*cks who drive their car to the shop around the corner, to turn in their car or invest in a clean one (on electricity or whatever) because they're polluting the air I breath as well and thereby increasing the risk of me getting lungcancer because of that.
I agree.

Oh and there's no need for us to build smoke free pubs. They're all smoke free now.

[j2k4]

I demand that those stupid f*cks who drive their car to the shop around the corner, to turn in their car or invest in a clean one (on electricity or whatever) because they're polluting the air I breath as well and thereby increasing the risk of me getting lungcancer because of that.
I agree.

Oh and there's no need for us to build smoke free pubs. They're all smoke free now.

Quite right.

BTW-

Have you noticed how much more successful this thread is than the other one that one guy started?

You know the one...:P

[Busyman™]

My opinion: if the non-smokers are so appalled by smoking in pubs let them build their own smoke free pubs :dry:

Yes - I know - it's a bit self-centric but seeing how non-smokers here (my coutry) talk about the people who do smoke I couldn't care less.
We're being talked about like criminals.

Well - if you want to see smoking banned from public places I demand that those stupid f*cks who drive their car to the shop around the corner, to turn in their car or invest in a clean one (on electricity or whatever) because they're polluting the air I breath as well and thereby increasing the risk of me getting lungcancer because of that.
Sigghhhh. I understand your issue and I'm a non-smoker.

Another will simply say it matters none since it's law. The fact is the law sounds like it would even infringe on the rights of one to have a smoke only pub.

So maybe we shouldn't talk about it since it's law unless it's too say it's great for those with the ban. We've had the same ban over here in many places local to me and it does seem unfair. Many businessess in Silver Spring have gone under. DC has already approved a ban and bar owners are going to lose tons of business at their barstools.

Using the titly bar doohicky, some may not have got the gist. The reason they are related isn't about what would kill you.

It is about what a patron knows full well going into the establishment and then takes issue with it afterwards. It's saying...you have a choice to make. This is spreading.

Maybe all of this is an aim to ban smoking altogether by telling smokers you can't smoke anywhere but outside. Next thing will be...you can't smoke outside.

Barbara even thinks one shouldn't be able to smoke in their own home ffs....even absent a baby.:unsure:

Maybe establishments in areas WITHOUT smoking bans should start smoke-only private bars since it seems these bans will make their way to them in the near future.

[JPaul]

Maybe establishments in areas WITHOUT smoking bans should start smoke-only private bars since it seems these bans will make their way to them in the near future.
Smoke only bars :lol:

Would you have to smoke a certain number per hour or get thrown out.

[Skweeky1]

I just had 3 cigarettes at a mates house :(
I was being plyed with vodka though so I blame alcohol now for my ways.
Maybe we should have some alcohol free pubs now?

[Busyman™]

I just had 3 cigarettes at a mates house :(
I was being plyed with vodka though so I blame alcohol now for my ways.
Maybe we should have some alcohol free pubs now?
....or maybe we can have alcohol only pubs where you have to have an alcoholic beverage in at your station at all times.

It's a requirement.:stars:

[Skweeky1]

Eh? Like a Scottish pub then?

[Busyman™]

Eh? Like a Scottish pub then?
I guess. :unsure:

If you are there with 3 friends at a table and you don't have an alcoholic drink in front of you, are you thrown out?:O

[JPaul]

....or maybe we can have alcohol only pubs where you have to have an alcoholic beverage in at your station at all times.

It's a requirement.:stars:
Makes more sense than your last idea.

[j2k4]

This thread has come to try my very soul.

You know what I mean. :)

[JPaul]

This thread has come to try my very soul.

You know what I mean. :)
No, no I don't

[j2k4]

This thread has come to try my very soul.

You know what I mean. :)

No, no I don't

Oh, okay. :huh:

[Busyman™]

This thread has come to try my very soul.

You know what I mean. :)
Is it that some folks act like they are stupid or are stupid?:P

[Everose]

I will say that it used to make me angry when I felt others put me down for smoking. It didn't happen often because I mostly smoked on my own property. But sometimes at meetings I would go outside on break with the other smokers (great people, btw) and I noticed the disgusted looks thrown our way by the non smokers. It made me angry, what gave them the right to judge a smoker in that way!

This anger I felt actually kept me smoking longer than I should have. Kind of like a defiance thing.

I guess that anger went away when I realized it was myself I was angry with. Angry at myself because I couldn't stop something that I felt was taking years off my life. And even angry at myself for having an addiction so strong that I couldn't control it.

So basically I was really judging myself a lot harder than others judged me for it, and when I realized that it seemed kind of silly to be mad at them for doing the same thing I was doing.

Skweeky1.........I have stayed away from bars, and even people I used to smoke with. Even doing that, I have backslid. But I am just trying to keep focused on not having one.

I may have posted this before, but what really hit me is that hand surgeons will not even attempt to reattach severed fingers on a smoker. And then recently I started reading a book by a Dr. Amen from Fairfield, CA. He does SPECT on brains and he has pictures in his book of how smoking affects the brain. Scared me. I need every last brain cell I can muster some days.:D

If constant second hand smoke can do the same thing to non smokers, then I would have to say that I don't blame them for not wanting to be around it.

[Busyman™]

I will say that it used to make me angry when I felt others put me down for smoking. It didn't happen often because I mostly smoked on my own property. But sometimes at meetings I would go outside on break with the other smokers (great people, btw) and I noticed the disgusted looks thrown our way by the non smokers. It made me angry, what gave them the right to judge a smoker in that way!

This anger I felt actually kept me smoking longer than I should have. Kind of like a defiance thing.

I guess that anger went away when I realized it was myself I was angry with. Angry at myself because I couldn't stop something that I felt was taking years off my life. And even angry at myself for having an addiction so strong that I couldn't control it.

So basically I was really judging myself a lot harder than others judged me for it, and when I realized that it seemed kind of silly to be mad at them for doing the same thing I was doing.

Skweeky1.........I have stayed away from bars, and even people I used to smoke with. Even doing that, I have backslid. But I am just trying to keep focused on not having one.

I may have posted this before, but what really hit me is that hand surgeons will not even attempt to reattach severed fingers on a smoker. And then recently I started reading a book by a Dr. Amen from Fairfield, CA. He does SPECT on brains and he has pictures in his book of how smoking affects the brain. Scared me. I need every last brain cell I can muster some days.:D

If constant second hand smoke can do the same thing to non smokers, then I would have to say that I don't blame them for not wanting to be around it.
Nice post. I used to hate when my mother smoked around me as a teenager. I don't blame folks for not wanting to be around it. In almost all cases, however, they have a choice absent of a ban, even.

The fact is that at bars where smoking is known to be present, the non-smoker knows this beforehand and made a choice.....to be around it. On the surface, I am for a ban in public places. However, I believe if a proprietor so chooses to have a smoking-only establishment in which smokers and folks who don't mind the smoke can patronize then that right should not be taken away. That way non-smokers who can't stand smoke can fuck off elsewhere and smokers can stay in their own fucked smog.

If it doesn't work financially for the proprietor in that case, so be it. Let the market decide. Not getting non-smoker business and he may fuck himself over....or he may not. Smokers may flock to his establishment as a refuge. This outright ban stuff has already fucked over many businesses over this side.

[j2k4]

This thread has come to try my very soul.

You know what I mean. :)
Is it that some folks act like they are stupid or are stupid?:P

Both, and that whichever it is doesn't even matter. :wacko:

[Everose]

Busy, I actually agree with you here. If someone wants a smokers only bar, and if all his employees smoke too, I have no problem with that, either.

As crazy as things have gotten, though, I would have to give some thought to any possible legal implications.

Haven't there been cases where bartenders are actually sued because they let someone drink too much and that person left driving and killed someone? With our liquor laws here the way they are......bars do have some liability there. (I am not saying this is fair)

As out of kilter as things have become, I could see someone that frequented a smokers only establishment developing lung cancer and suing the establishment because the smoker wouldn't have smoked so much more because that establishment allowed it where others didn't.

Most laws and ordinances are written for the betterment of the majority of the population. It bites big time when you aren't in that majority.

[lynx]

One of the crazy arguments I've heard put forward by those who support the ban on smoking in bars, is that people who currently don't go to the bars because of the smoke will start frequenting them and consequently profits will rise.

If that's the case, there must be such a demand for non-smoking bars that anyone opening one will get rich rapidly. However, real life doesn't seem to bear that out.

I suspect that the truth is that while a lot of non-smokers might prefer a smoke free environment, they aren't actually that bothered about it one way or the other. A lot of those that really make a fuss about it are probably anti-social b****** and don't go to bars anyway.

[JPaul]

A lot of those that really make a fuss about it are probably anti-social b****** and don't go to bars anyway.

I was in a pub in Glasgow on Thursday with a mixture of smokers and non-smokers. A company of around 16, both male and female, ages ranging from 21 to 55 . Everyone commented on how much more pleasent the atmosphere was and how it was good to be able to breathe cleaner air, including the smokers.

One chap, a smoker, made an excellent point which I hadn't thought about but which would have been true of me had I still been smoking. He made the simple observation that he did not smoke in his own home anyway as he had young children and would not poison their air by smoking in the house. He normally went to his back door to have a cigarette, so doing it in a pub was six and half a dozen to him.

He further noted that, since the ban, he was smoking about half the number of cigarettes when in the pub, as he had to make an effort to smoke, rather than doing it automatically and not even realizing how much he was smoking. This he commented was really a rather good thing.

In short, for him;

1. The atmosphere in which he was socializing was much nicer.

2. He could still smoke if he chose to and it was no more of a chore than it was in his own home. Or outside to be more accurate

3. He smoked less when drinking which was a good thng from both a health and financial perspective.

That's a true story, based on the experience of someone socializing, with smokers, in a city with a smoking (in enclosed public spaces) ban. It is not a glib, unsubstantiated comment like the one it is in response to. Fact. Oh and the b******* is really a rather cheap shot, after you had PMed me to moderate my language. You get more pathetic by the day, mate.

[j2k4]

Oh and the b******* is really a rather cheap shot, after you had PMed me to moderate my language. You get more pathetic by the day, mate.

WTF?

He didn't call you a b*******, he called you a b******.

There's a tremendous difference, you know.

[lynx]

Oh and the b******* is really a rather cheap shot, after you had PMed me to moderate my language. You get more pathetic by the day, mate.

WTF?

He didn't call you a b*******, he called you a b******.

There's a tremendous difference, you know.Don't push your luck.

Warning.

Last one.

[Busyman™]

One of the crazy arguments I've heard put forward by those who support the ban on smoking in bars, is that people who currently don't go to the bars because of the smoke will start frequenting them and consequently profits will rise.

If that's the case, there must be such a demand for non-smoking bars that anyone opening one will get rich rapidly. However, real life doesn't seem to bear that out.

I suspect that the truth is that while a lot of non-smokers might prefer a smoke free environment, they aren't actually that bothered about it one way or the other. A lot of those that really make a fuss about it are probably anti-social b****** and don't go to bars anyway.
As I said, many businesses have gone under because of this. It's 'cause they either don't get customers that are smokers frequenting their establishment or they make less money 'cause the smokers that do come, drink less. Money at the barstool goes down.

To your last, that may be somewhat true. I'm sure there are anti-smoking advocates who simply want to stamp out cigarettes altogether. However, I can't fault that. I don't think they should be legal at all. Since it is though, it doesn't seem right to fuck over the minority when there is a remedy to please all.

[Busyman™]

WTF?

He didn't call you a b*******, he called you a b******.

There's a tremendous difference, you know.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

"A lot of those" isn't directed at anyone in particular though.:ermm:

[j2k4]

WTF?

He didn't call you a b*******, he called you a b******.

There's a tremendous difference, you know.Don't push your luck.

Warning.

Last one.

Warning?

For what, please?

[JPaul]

Don't push your luck.

Warning.

Last one.

Warning?

For what, please?
I was kind of wondering that.

What was actually wrong with that post. I can't really see that it broke a rule.

[j2k4]

Warning?

For what, please?
I was kind of wondering that.

What was actually wrong with that post. I can't really see that it broke a rule.

Neither was I aware I had encountered any luck in need of a push...

[lynx]

Don't push your luck.

Warning.

Last one.

Warning?

For what, please?For trying to infer that I've said something against JPaul. Your repeated attempts to undermine me will stop.

Unfortunately you have to get these warnings in public since you've expressed a desire that I don't PM you.

[j2k4]

Warning?

For what, please?For trying to infer that I've said something against JPaul. Your repeated attempts to undermine me will stop.

Unfortunately you have to get these warnings in public since you've expressed a desire that I don't PM you.

I made no such inference.

I merely corrected his misunderstanding.

As one of the board's spelling mavens, he's well aware b****** has only six characters, not the seven he used.

[Busyman™]

For trying to infer that I've said something against JPaul. Your repeated attempts to undermine me will stop.

Unfortunately you have to get these warnings in public since you've expressed a desire that I don't PM you.

I made no such inference.

I merely corrected his misunderstanding.

As one of the board's spelling mavens, he's well aware b****** has only six characters, not the seven he used.
I'd like to see where GayPaul was addressed as a b****** or a b*****.:whistling

[j2k4]

I'd like to see where GayPaul was addressed as a b****** or a b*****.:whistling

Are you mad?

No one referred to anyone as a b*****.

[JPaul]

Chaps, we all know what our intent is when we make the posts. We all know who we are having a pop at and who we are not having a pop at.

It really is rather undignified when we do this childish "That's not what I meant, prove it" thing. Surely that's for the 12 year olds.

[Busyman™]

I'd like to see where GayPaul was addressed as a b****** or a b*****.:whistling

Are you mad?

No one referred to anyone as a b*****.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[JPaul]

Is it busker

[Everose]

Well Damnit. I was entertaining the thought that Lynx was referring to me.
You mean he wasn't? Damnit. I was starting to get way proud. It is not easy to be a bitch and takes much energy to maintain.:lol:

In all seriousness I do understand Lynx's statement. I have seen a lot of people that draft ordinances or laws that don't think the law pertains to them, or that use the process to suit their own needs or desires. And it pisses me off, too.

[Busyman™]

In all seriousness I do understand Lynx's statement. I have seen a lot of people that draft ordinances or laws that don't think the law pertains to them, or that use the process to suit their own needs or desires. And it pisses me off, too.
Same here. I thought his comment fit the bill of many folk.

[JPaul]

In all seriousness I do understand Lynx's statement. I have seen a lot of people that draft ordinances or laws that don't think the law pertains to them, or that use the process to suit their own needs or desires. And it pisses me off, too.
Same here. I thought his comment fit the bill of many folk.
Yeah, but to be fair you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[MagicNakor]

You're all b********

:shuriken:

[JPaul]

You're all b********

:shuriken:
m*****f*****

[j2k4]

You're all b********

:shuriken:

Excuse me, sir-

Are you a moderator at all, at all.

[Busyman™]

You're all b********

:shuriken:

Excuse me, sir-

Are you a moderator at all, at all.
Now see there. Magic actually adressed folk.:lol: :lol:

ST*U!!