Printable View
I understand thoroughly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
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. :)
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.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filliz
Oh and there's no need for us to build smoke free pubs. They're all smoke free now.
Quite right.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
BTW-
Have you noticed how much more successful this thread is than the other one that one guy started?
You know the one...:P
Sigghhhh. I understand your issue and I'm a non-smoker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filliz
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.
Smoke only bars :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Would you have to smoke a certain number per hour or get thrown out.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
It's a requirement.:stars:
Eh? Like a Scottish pub then?
I guess. :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky1
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
Makes more sense than your last idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
This thread has come to try my very soul.
You know what I mean. :)
No, no I don'tQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Oh, okay. :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Is it that some folks act like they are stupid or are stupid?:PQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
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.
Both, and that whichever it is doesn't even matter. :wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
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.
WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
He didn't call you a b*******, he called you a b******.
There's a tremendous difference, you know.
Don't push your luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Warning.
Last one.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
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.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
"A lot of those" isn't directed at anyone in particular though.:ermm:
Warning?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
For what, please?
I was kind of wondering that.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
For trying to infer that I've said something against JPaul. Your repeated attempts to undermine me will stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
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*****.:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Are you mad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
No one referred to anyone as a b*****.
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.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Is it busker
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.
Same here. I thought his comment fit the bill of many folk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
Yeah, but to be fair you don't have a clue what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
You're all b********
:shuriken:
m*****f*****Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor