PDA

View Full Version : Smoking!



mo_roodi
May 25th, 2007, 07:18 PM
For those of you who live in England you'll probably be aware that as of the 1st July smokers will no longer be able to "enjoy" a cigarette in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or any other public enclosed space.

As a smoker attempting to quit I just wanted to know what everyone's opinion of this is? Personally I am indifferent, and in fact as I am attempting to quit I can see this move helping me finally break the habit. But at the same time I know many die hard smokers (bad choice of wording maybe?) who are totally opposed to the prospect.

What's your opinion on the ban? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing?

Are you a resident in a country that has already enforced such a ban? If so how has this ban affected you (either smoker or non-smoker)?

Do you feel it's a good thing?

Ateo
May 25th, 2007, 07:23 PM
It's a good move. Many states here have passed such laws. We actually just voted that law into effect here this past election but it does not apply to the casino floors. It appllies to bars, pubs, diners, etc.

I just wish we could ban fast food since it's just as unhealthy.

compmodder26
May 25th, 2007, 07:27 PM
We have a public smoking ban in my city here in the states. For about two months after it was enacted, people opposed it heavily and places like bars, etc. took a noticeable hit in business. However, after those first two months passed, everything seemed to go magically back to normal. I love not having to eat my food while simultaneously contending with the smell of smoke. The food actually tastes better! If I travel to another city/state without public smoking bans, I can instantly tell. My nose has seemingly grown quite sensitive to smoke.

juxtaposed
May 25th, 2007, 07:29 PM
It's horrible that they're doing that.

I don't smoke, that is my choice. I am not going to force anyone else to choose the same, they can make their choice on their own. Owners of bars, restaurants, etc should decide whether they allow smoking in their establishment.

mips
May 25th, 2007, 07:30 PM
What's your opinion on the ban? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing?

Are you a resident in a country that has already enforced such a ban? If so how has this ban affected you (either smoker or non-smoker)?

?

Personally I think they should just ban the sale of cigarettes outright instead of all these stupid laws.

It's partially implemented over here, pubs/restaurants have designated smoking areas but we are heading for a similair situation with an outright ban in public places. Also read something about banning smoking in cars if there are kids in the car. With that reasoning they will probably ban you smoking in your own house as well if there are kids present.

Bachstelze
May 25th, 2007, 07:32 PM
I don't somke and I think that is great. I don't mind people damaging their own health as long as they don't damage mine as well.

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 07:36 PM
For those of you who live in England you'll probably be aware that as of the 1st July smokers will no longer be able to "enjoy" a cigarette in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or any other public enclosed space.

As a smoker attempting to quit I just wanted to know what everyone's opinion of this is? Personally I am indifferent, and in fact as I am attempting to quit I can see this move helping me finally break the habit. But at the same time I know many die hard smokers (bad choice of wording maybe?) who are totally opposed to the prospect.

What's your opinion on the ban? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing?

Are you a resident in a country that has already enforced such a ban? If so how has this ban affected you (either smoker or non-smoker)?

Do you feel it's a good thing?

Personally, I do feel it's a good thing. If I had my way you wouldn't be able to smoke indoors at all, it's a health issue. I have NO problem if you want to kill yourself for $3 a pack, that is perfectly fine by me. But I'm going to ask that you respect my right to not breath in the poisons you do, completely unfiltered as well. I won't try to convince you not to smoke, but just because you have no respect for your own body doesn't give you the right to have no respect for mine.

Suzan
May 25th, 2007, 07:38 PM
Great!

I wish in germany they could do the same. But it seems the german goverment is very afraid of the cigarette lobby.

mips
May 25th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Will be weird going to pub where you cannot smoke. There is this one old Irish local that smokes a pipe and I actually like the smell of it.

mo_roodi
May 25th, 2007, 07:42 PM
By the looks of things it's lucky England even got this ban... Most of the pubs/clubs seemed to oppose the move.

As a smoker you don't realise how much of an affect smoking has on your surroundings... It's only after you stop you realise exactly how much things smell! It's really quite upsetting to see how much of an affect you have on people!

M

muguwmp67
May 25th, 2007, 07:46 PM
I'm a smoker, but I absolutely believe that smoking is a huge public health problem in the United States. I've been a smoker for 20 years, and do not plan to quit anytime soon.

Even so, I think the charges of secondhand smoke are overblown. I do think that smoke is obnoxious to non-smokers, my Mom smoked when I was a kid, and I constantly had headaches from it. Nonetheless, I think these are horrible laws.

Owners of public establishments should have the choice as to whether smoking is allowed or not. If the government wants to promote non-smoking establishments, they should not pass a law preventing it. Instead, they should promote it by including some incentive for restaurants/bars to prohibit smoking on their own.

In my city, we passed a law three years ago that required a separate area for smokers, with stringent requirements as to air purification and glass dividers between the areas. These modifications to restaurants cost thousands of dollars, but were worth it to establishments who did not want to lose the business to a neighboring state. Last year, the state probitied smoking in every restaurant. This negated the value of any investment made by the restaurants, and we now have several restaurants that have now been forced out of business, not good for a city that is turning into a ghost town as it is.

Yes it is a health problem, people shouldn't smoke. I hope less people are picking up smoking ttoday than 10 years ago. But, it should be up to pubs/restaurants, etc to make this decision on their own. A non-smoker has a right to choose where they want to eat, but they do not have a right to force a business owner to accomidate them. That should be the business's choice, not the non-smoker's.

Next year maybe someone should put red meat on the ballot too, and perhaps a law that says obese people shouldn't be allowed to eat in restaurants.

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 07:51 PM
I'm a smoker, but I absolutely believe that smoking is a huge public health problem in the United States. I've been a smoker for 20 years, and do not plan to quit anytime soon.

Even so, I think the charges of secondhand smoke are overblown. I do think that smoke is obnoxious to non-smokers, my Mom smoked when I was a kid, and I constantly had headaches from it. Nonetheless, I think these are horrible laws.

Owners of public establishments should have the choice as to whether smoking is allowed or not. If the government wants to promote non-smoking establishments, they should not pass a law preventing it. Instead, they should promote it by including some incentive for restaurants/bars to prohibit smoking on their own.

In my city, we passed a law three years ago that required a separate area for smokers, with stringent requirements as to air purification and glass dividers between the areas. These modifications to restaurants cost thousands of dollars, but were worth it to establishments who did not want to lose the business to a neighboring state. Last year, the state probitied smoking in every restaurant. This negated the value of any investment made by the restaurants, and we now have several restaurants that have now been forced out of business, not good for a city that is turning into a ghost town as it is.

Yes it is a health problem, people shouldn't smoke. I hope less people are picking up smoking ttoday than 10 years ago. But, it should be up to pubs/restaurants, etc to make this decision on their own. A non-smoker has a right to choose where they want to eat, but they do not have a right to force a business owner to accomidate them. That should be the business's choice, not the non-smoker's.



People can smoke, that's their right to do so. It is their right to go get drunk, high, whatever they want to do to their own bodies. But the 'charges of second hand smoke' are definitely not overblown. Think about all of the things they put into those cigarettes, now think about what resides between you and those things.. it's called a filter. You, oddly enough, are the only one in the room is protected to any extent from those poisons, everyone around you, they don't get a filter they just get the smoke. And yes, it DOES cause lung damage, I had breathing problems for my entire childhood because my parents smoked.


Next year maybe someone should put red meat on the ballot too, and perhaps a law that says obese people shouldn't be allowed to eat in restaurants.

This is just getting ridiculous. Does the person to the right of you die when you eat a steak rare? People who choose to eat undercooked food, and eat too much so they get fat are not killing everyone around them by choosing to do so. I'm friends with a few obese people, and I'm still pretty healthy.

Wim Sturkenboom
May 25th, 2007, 07:56 PM
Personally I think they should just ban the sale of cigarettes outright I personally think that that's a bad idea as I'm a smoker :( On a lighter note, the Lesotho dagga donkeys will get very busy ;)

Eddie Wilson
May 25th, 2007, 07:59 PM
I have no problem with no smoking in restaurants, public transportation and places like that. I don't agree with the bar ban and never will. I don't smoke cigs. tho I did years ago. I just feel that people should be careful on how many freedoms they want to give away. Don't give me this crap about I have a right not to smell your smoke and thats fine, but who has the most rights? Or who should lose their rights? Most people don't or at least try not to offend people with their smoke. In some cities you can't even smoke if you are standing outside of your own house in your yard. Thats not right and never will be. Thats one of the reasons private clubs are starting to make a comeback. This will be debated for years and watch out. Your burgers will be next.
Eddie

Bachstelze
May 25th, 2007, 08:06 PM
Don't give me this crap about I have a right not to smell your smoke and thats fine, but who has the most rights? Or who should lose their rights?

Complete rubbish. Next, you're going to tell us that not smoking damages one's health ?

mo_roodi
May 25th, 2007, 08:06 PM
I agree compeletly that there's gotto be a point when people say "hang on a second... It's out right to do <insert a freedom they are attempting to take away here>"... But having said that, as a person who is attempting to quit smoking I like the idea of being able to have a drink (or two) without smelling smoke - that is a purely selfish reason as it means I don't get tempted to smoke.

It was my choice to smoke though, and it's my choice to quit. I believe that if you choose to do something you should be able to. Heck that's what's brought us all together here isn't it? A choice to use Linux, so why shouldn't I be able to choose to have a smoke while having a pint... But then again, you can look at from the opposite side, so I should have the choice as to whether to smell someone else's cigarettes, or should have to breathe in your cigarette smoke?

Sluipvoet
May 25th, 2007, 08:10 PM
The owner of a bar/restaurant took a risk by starting his/her own business.
The bar/restaurant is his/her property.


Nobody is forced to enter, so don't complain about second-hand smoke.

So the only logical choice is to let the owner of the bar/restaurant decide.

juxtaposed
May 25th, 2007, 08:13 PM
To the people saying that they don't want a total ban, just when it effects them (like in bars): Shouldn't the owner of the establishment decide whether they allow smoking or not?

mo_roodi
May 25th, 2007, 08:14 PM
I actually think the whole "half-way house" method isn't a great idea, creates far too much confusion. I'm a believer that is should either be a total ban or nothing...

M

Bachstelze
May 25th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Agreed, that's why I'm 100% for a total ban but the ban only in public places is better than nothing.

mills
May 25th, 2007, 08:19 PM
iam a smoker and pretty much think this is a good thing i would also be up for a total ban, ive tried giving up a few times but its so difficult to avoid temptation when times are a little stressful or the beers are flowing nicely,

yep total ban would be good

aidanr
May 25th, 2007, 08:23 PM
We have a public smoking ban in my city here in the states. For about two months after it was enacted, people opposed it heavily and places like bars, etc. took a noticeable hit in business. However, after those first two months passed, everything seemed to go magically back to normal. I love not having to eat my food while simultaneously contending with the smell of smoke. The food actually tastes better! If I travel to another city/state without public smoking bans, I can instantly tell. My nose has seemingly grown quite sensitive to smoke.


that's pretty much the same that happened here, the one thing i noticed immediately afterwards was the terrible smell of sweat in clubs that was previously masked by the smoke, doesn't seem to be a problem anymore though

and in the winter it's a bit chilly having to go outside to smoke, i've found that i've pretty much completely stopped going to pubs and clubs now and rarely drink

so because of the smoking ban i've continued to smoke, but now don't drink ;-)

prince_alfie
May 25th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Yep let's get rid of smokers completely :D

andnobodyslept
May 25th, 2007, 08:26 PM
I find the ban in England personally funny. I worked for about a year as security in New York City club (New York banned smokeing about 5 years ago) that was often frequented by the British and other Europeans, and for them it was torture to have to go outside. For the New Yorkers it was the norm but for anyone else outside of NewYork they would often put up a fit to the security; my favorite quote, "What kind of civilized society is this, where you can't smoke in a club?"

Anyway as for the ban, I don't smoke and was glad that there was a ban on it since I had to stand there for 8 to 10 hours at a time. I do think with my little time spent working in bars that if it was left up to the owners (which it techniqually is if there is no ban) allmost every place would allow smoking, because they wouldn't want to lose the buiness. With this being said, I'm on the fence on whether or not governments should be the ones to make these kinds of moves.

Luggy
May 25th, 2007, 08:27 PM
The smoking bans are one of the greatest things to happen in the last couple of years.

I used to go to watch hockey games at pubs and leave feeling sick from all the smoke.

Some people complain about how it will hurt buisness and it might at first. When Manitoba implemented it's smoking ban small rual bars suffered, but after a while alchol and gambling proved to be the greater addiction and buisness picked up.

sebbouckaert
May 25th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Personally, I do feel it's a good thing. If I had my way you wouldn't be able to smoke indoors at all, it's a health issue. I have NO problem if you want to kill yourself for $3 a pack, that is perfectly fine by me. But I'm going to ask that you respect my right to not breath in the poisons you do, completely unfiltered as well. I won't try to convince you not to smoke, but just because you have no respect for your own body doesn't give you the right to have no respect for mine.

Do you ask the same respect for your health from all those billions of people who drive around in their private car, causing traffic jams and air polution all over the major cities in the US, Europe and Asia?

In Belgium we have (almost) the same law as in the UK since January. Although I am a very moderate occasional social smoker myself (average of 2 cigarettes a week) I have no real problem with that. I have no problem with the surgeon general messages on cigarette packs, despite the fact that my government earns a LOT of money from tobacco sales.

I do however have a problem with hypocrisy. I therefore am convinced that we should vote a law to have the same warnings and restrictions on the use of cars (for example bumper stickers...only full cars allowed during peak hour...etc...).

I bike a lot through town, and I think all the bad air from traffic might be just as bad as the occasional ***, not to mention the dangers car trafic poses to us, cyclists.

But it's just a matter of putting things in perspective. Neither the use of a car or smoking a cigarette should be prohibited in my opinion.

cascader
May 25th, 2007, 08:38 PM
Well, in Queensland Australia there has been bans in ALL outdoor areas, excepting 10 feet away (or some similar arbitrary distance) at the curb and is extremist and unwarranted.

New South Wales, Australia, which I visited yesterday, are bringing in similar extremist laws. Sad to see that Europe seems to be following a similar course . . . mind you I never smoke in someone else's face, I always try to save any non-smoker having to suffer my second hand smoke and of course there are die-hard smokers who maybe aren't as considerate, but gee guys and gals, this is going too far. Pull your collective heads in and get over it.

Well, that's my opinion, anyways, for what it's worth.

mo_roodi
May 25th, 2007, 08:51 PM
I suppose a logical question is when is this going to stop?
Today smoking... But who knows what the government is going to go after next?

M

matthinckley
May 25th, 2007, 08:57 PM
This thread should really have a poll..

I'm against these types of restrictions.. I think they should impose fines for throwing butts on the ground or flicking them out of your car.. basically littering.. but it should be the establishment owners choice not the governments if people can smoke or not

Ender Black
May 25th, 2007, 08:59 PM
I'm a smoker but I never smoke in enclosed spaces. I will only smoke in my house if all the doors and windows are open. However, I am appalled by laws that dictate what a business is allowed to do concerning a legal activity. If you don't like smoke in your face, go to another establishment. If enough non-smokers feel that way then the establishment will have to change its smoking policy or close its doors. That is the way it should work. Not using a bully government to dictate how a personal contract between two persons is carried out (the contract being the customer receives drinks/entertainment/food in a familiar and fun environment and the business receives the customer's money.)

I am not surprised that the English have fallen to this en vogue law, they willingly gave up individual privacy in the name of "safety." Those cameras helped out when al-Qai'da decided to attack you didn't they?

It blows me away the number of people who would rather have a nanny state take care of your lives for you. Europe, United States, and Oceania, wake the hell up before you find your benevolent governments based up the principal of "By the people for the people" have become benevolent dictatorships.

wmcbrine
May 25th, 2007, 10:54 PM
Up until the recent waves of smoking bans in the U.S., what we'd done was mostly to divide restaurants into smoking and non-smoking sections. How well that worked is summed up by this quote: "Dividing a restaurant into smoking and non-smoking is like dividing a swimming pool into peeing and non-peeing."

Leaving things up to owners hasn't worked. Even when particular owners might prefer to disallow smoking, they seldom do; because they figure that if they do it, but their competitors don't, they'll lose business. This may or may not be correct -- personally, I don't think it is -- but it's been the common view until very recently. So the result is that everyone continues to allow it. This is changing now, but slowly.

What's really changing is society's consensus. In the mid-twentieth century, smoking was the norm; so of course it was allowed almost everywhere. Today, smokers have become a minority. But even a very small percentage of smokers has a disproportionate effect on people in the surrounding area. (I won't say an "enclosed" area, because frankly, being outdoors doesn't help that much.)

So, do you choose to make the smokers uncomfortable, by making them smoke elsewhere? Or do you choose to make the nonsmokers uncomfortable, by allowing smoking? Logic says that, as the percentage of nonsmokers comes to exceed the percentage of smokers, it's them you should accomodate. But restaurateurs and others have mostly defied this logic. Nonsmokers, now the majority, deem this unjust. Hence, the bans.

Suppose smoking didn't have a 400-year history in Western society, and was just being introduced today. What do you think would happen? I think it would be recognized by all as the profoundly obnoxious practice that it is -- all health issues aside -- and would never be allowed anywhere in public.

Your right to swing your fist stops before it hits my nose... as does your right to pollute the air. And I'm not talking about merely offending people -- if, for instance, you wanted to walk around naked on Main Street, that would be fine by me. But I don't think you should be allowed to make my throat scratch, my eyes itch, and my clothes stink for hours, just because your smoke wafted my way for a few seconds (and yes, that's all the time it takes).

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 11:00 PM
Do you ask the same respect for your health from all those billions of people who drive around in their private car, causing traffic jams and air polution all over the major cities in the US, Europe and Asia?

In Belgium we have (almost) the same law as in the UK since January. Although I am a very moderate occasional social smoker myself (average of 2 cigarettes a week) I have no real problem with that. I have no problem with the surgeon general messages on cigarette packs, despite the fact that my government earns a LOT of money from tobacco sales.

I do however have a problem with hypocrisy. I therefore am convinced that we should vote a law to have the same warnings and restrictions on the use of cars (for example bumper stickers...only full cars allowed during peak hour...etc...).

I bike a lot through town, and I think all the bad air from traffic might be just as bad as the occasional ***, not to mention the dangers car trafic poses to us, cyclists.

But it's just a matter of putting things in perspective. Neither the use of a car or smoking a cigarette should be prohibited in my opinion.

I don't ask people to go broke for me, or give up their livelihood. Cars are an important part of a lot of peoples' lives and while I do absolutely hope for clean fuel cars in the future, that would be asking too much today. Asking people to stop smoking cigarettes in closed environments where the public, or other non-smokers, may be is not too much. There is a difference.

jgrabham
May 25th, 2007, 11:04 PM
I dont smoke, but I dont care when people around me do.

argie
May 25th, 2007, 11:08 PM
Out of curiosity, why mustn't I be allowed to excrete faeces on the pavement if I really need to?

Oh yeah, because faeces doesn't cause cancer :)

MOS95B
May 25th, 2007, 11:08 PM
Minnesota just passed a smoking ban, effective October.

I'm a smoker. I can deal with, and understand, no smoking in restaurants. If you can't sit through a meal without a smoke, you might want to reconsider your priorities.

But bars?? WTF, over? Who goes to bars expecting a healthy environment?? Not me. I go to the bar to drink. When I drink, I smoke. I don't wanna have to hope someone doesn't steal my beer or my table while I sneak outside for a smoke.

"But, second hand smoke is bad for you...." Yeah, but some idiot that doesn't know how to drink getting stupid drunk and starting a fight or driving home is juuuuuust fine..... In my time as a cop, I saw way to many idiots kill themselves and/or others because there's no law forcing a bartender to tell them they've had enough. But now there's one telling me I'm killing myself with a cigarette....

jeffc313
May 25th, 2007, 11:10 PM
its been that way for ages in Boston. Longer than I can remember.

jgrabham
May 25th, 2007, 11:12 PM
Out of curiosity, why mustn't I be allowed to excrete faeces on the pavement if I really need to?

Oh yeah, because faeces doesn't cause cancer :)


No dysentry, cholera goes on and on. Faeces is much worse than tobacco!

argie
May 25th, 2007, 11:15 PM
Personally, I think public spaces should be free from smokers but restaurants/bars etc... should be allowed to choose. If they want to lose non-smoking customers due to smokers, they can choose to do so.

Incidentally, does governmental medical assistance continue if you're a smoker/drinker/drug user by choice? Meaning, if you're aware that the substance you're using is harmful to you and still you use it, are other people responsible for your well-being once the harm happens?

@jgrabham:
So it's a matter of degree then. That's a perspective thing, no? You think that's where it should stop (dysentry, cholera is too much; cancer risk is too little). I think the cancer risk from second-hand smoke is too much. Can we objectively draw a line then?

myoungf1
May 25th, 2007, 11:16 PM
The thing that gets me the most in all of the smoking bans that are everywhere is one thing "Freedom Of Choice". More and more it seems that one persons freedom of choice is getting smaller and smaller. Now the governments feel they need to take a hand in what people do with their own selves. I am a smoker and want to quit in the future, for my own personal health, but I don't think the government should have a hand in what and how I do most things that are not criminal in nature. If I am not committing a crime shouldn't I choose if I want to smoke or not. For years there was places in restaurants, bars, etc to smoke but now thats not enough now they want an all out ban on smoking anywhere and yes including cars with children in them. All I am saying is where did the freedom of choice go. I am not sure where but I think this is a trend we will continue to see.

jgrabham
May 25th, 2007, 11:17 PM
Personally, I think public spaces should be free from smokers but restaurants/bars etc... should be allowed to choose. If they want to lose non-smoking customers due to smokers, they can choose to do so.

Incidentally, does governmental medical assistance continue if you're a smoker/drinker/drug user by choice? Meaning, if you're aware that the substance you're using is harmful to you and still you use it, are other people responsible for your well-being once the harm happens?

Yes, the NHS will pay!!

argie
May 25th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Yes, the NHS will pay!!

Ah, I was just curious about that, is all. It's interesting. The NHS is in the UK, no? I admire your support for such people. Well done.

jgrabham
May 25th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Ah, I was just curious about that, is all. It's interesting. The NHS is in the UK, no? I admire your support for such people. Well done.

yes

Lucifiel
May 25th, 2007, 11:21 PM
I'm always in favour of a ban on smoking. The smoke is bad for your health but second-hand smoke kills more than first-hand smoke. Furthermore, it harms the pregnant women, babies and infants who have to breathe in all these poisonous fumes.

Finally, the world needs to be free of all cigarette manufacturers. Their actions to maintain and increase their profits, are shameful! I know that in the US, a number of them used to hand out cigarettes to children in elementary and high schools. Though that was in the early to mid-90s, I wonder if they still carry such activities.

Adamant1988
May 25th, 2007, 11:22 PM
The thing that gets me the most in all of the smoking bans that are everywhere is one thing "Freedom Of Choice". More and more it seems that one persons freedom of choice is getting smaller and smaller. Now the governments feel they need to take a hand in what people do with their own selves. I am a smoker and want to quit in the future, for my own personal health, but I don't think the government should have a hand in what and how I do most things that are not criminal in nature. If I am not committing a crime shouldn't I choose if I want to smoke or not. For years there was places in restaurants, bars, etc to smoke but now thats not enough now they want an all out ban on smoking anywhere and yes including cars with children in them. All I am saying is where did the freedom of choice go. I am not sure where but I think this is a trend we will continue to see.

You have absolute freedom of choice with what you do with your own body. Whenever you start involving other people, that's when the government steps in.

No cell phones in cars? But it's my right to talk on the phone while I'm driving! (until I kill someone because I wasn't paying attention)

No smoking in restaurants! But it's my right to smoke in a restaurant while I eat! (Unless that 5 year old sitting behind me starts into an asthma attack. )

Now, yes, bars are a different bit of a playground, but the fact of the matter is that smokers do not get preference anymore. Society will limit what smokers can do because non-smokers wish to carry on healthy, productive lives without the risk of getting cancer from your second hand smoke.

hessiess
May 25th, 2007, 11:22 PM
the ban is a 100% good thing, i haft to put up with dad smoking enugh, outher people aswell makes it unbarable.

jgrabham
May 25th, 2007, 11:23 PM
I'm always in favour of a ban on smoking. The smoke is bad for your health but second-hand smoke kills more than first-hand smoke. Furthermore, it harms the pregnant women, babies and infants who have to breathe in all these poisonous fumes.

Finally, the world needs to be free of all cigarette manufacturers. Their actions to maintain and increase their profits, are shameful! I know that in the US, a number of them used to hand out cigarettes to children in elementary and high schools. Though that was in the early to mid-90s, I wonder if they still carry such activities.

Then everyone will start smkoing rollies and hey smell disgusting!

DoctorMO
May 25th, 2007, 11:28 PM
I don't understand these people who say it's their choice to smoke... it's my choice to brutally murder someone with a knife, not one that I'd ever make but I'm pleased the government is there to make such choices illegal.

Lets be fair, smoking is immoral, even outside your smoke will pollute the environment and more than likely be blown in the face of a none smoker walking behind you.

So it's only fair that all smokers should be stopped, not because I think they shouldn't have the right to take powerful addictive substances which I believe should be the right of anything to harm them selves and even commit suicide. but to harm others is a very fundamental tenant of the moral system to ignore it for the convenience of ones habit is to be immoral.

Conclusion: smoking and smokers are immoral, smokers who only smoke outside are attempting mitigation but it's just not good enough; why not chew tobacco or at least take it via patches to get your buzz? it's all the same stuff going into your blood.

I will never stand by and sanction immoral behaviour, even is it's socially acceptable to do so.

floke
May 25th, 2007, 11:33 PM
To the people saying that they don't want a total ban, just when it effects them (like in bars): Shouldn't the owner of the establishment decide whether they allow smoking or not?


I actually think the whole "half-way house" method isn't a great idea, creates far too much confusion. I'm a believer that is should either be a total ban or nothing...

M


This thread should really have a poll..

I'm against these types of restrictions.. I think they should impose fines for throwing butts on the ground or flicking them out of your car.. basically littering.. but it should be the establishment owners choice not the governments if people can smoke or not


I'm a smoker but I never smoke in enclosed spaces. I will only smoke in my house if all the doors and windows are open. However, I am appalled by laws that dictate what a business is allowed to do concerning a legal activity. If you don't like smoke in your face, go to another establishment. If enough non-smokers feel that way then the establishment will have to change its smoking policy or close its doors. That is the way it should work.

The most completely stupid arguments ever. Simply switch the words 'shouldn't the owner of the establishment decide whether they allow smoking or not' to 'shouldn't the owner of the establishment be decide whether they admit Jews / Blacks / Gays / Women' etc. and you should (with a modicum of intelligence) get the point. It should not be up to the owners of establishments to decide, no. Shouldn't I have the right to go to a pub without being poisoned? As for the matter of whose rights come first; I'm not actually stopping anyone from poisoning themselves in this, so am infringing less upon you (making you go outside for a ***) than you are on me (making be breathe your crap).

Argument over.

smoker
May 25th, 2007, 11:44 PM
i smoke, but i rarely smoke outside my home, and no government will bar me from that.

i am quite glad the smoking ban has come in though (come to Scotland last year), because now i know that with such a caring government we have, pretty soon they will be banning all sorts of other things that will be deemed to be harmful. i'll soon be able to walk along a road and not have to breath in all the exhaust fumes. they'll soon ban the use of alcohol, or maybe limit it to a certified amount i can have per day or week! electricity may be cut-off at 10pm to guarantee no distractions of late night tv, stereo blaring next door, so everyone can go to bed in peace for eight hours undisturbed sleep. now we are well down the road to the nanny-state, i can rest assured that there will be comittees and think-tanks formed to come up with many ideas of how i can stop from harming myself and others.

oh, tis a day for joy:D:D:D

executor
May 25th, 2007, 11:49 PM
i smoke

her in Norway you can`t smoke



:)

wmcbrine
May 25th, 2007, 11:52 PM
The thing that gets me the most in all of the smoking bans that are everywhere is one thing "Freedom Of Choice". More and more it seems that one persons freedom of choice is getting smaller and smaller.Complete and utter rubbish. In almost any category one chooses to name, choice has done nothing but continue to expand.


Now the governments feel they need to take a hand in what people do with their own selves.No. Smoking bans are for the benefit of non-smokers, not smokers.

And to put these two together... Smoking bans increase my freedom, by allowing me to go to more places and do more things without physical discomfort. So please don't pretend that you're standing up for "freedom" by standing against smoking bans. Freedom cuts two ways here.

jackmc
May 26th, 2007, 12:04 AM
I'm happy that smoking bans finally came in here. I was getting so sick of waking up after a night out and smelling the smoke in my room, my clothes, my hair, just from being in a room full of smokers.

I'm sure if I was a smoker I'd feel differently.

juxtaposed
May 26th, 2007, 12:26 AM
And to put these two together... Smoking bans increase my freedom, by allowing me to go to more places and do more things without physical discomfort. So please don't pretend that you're standing up for "freedom" by standing against smoking bans. Freedom cuts two ways here.

Taking away someone elses freedom for your conveinence isn't good.

Here's an analogy, I guess...

I like linux. I want the government to ban windows, because that would give me the freedom of not having to put up with an operating system that I don't like.

See anything wrong with that?

I choose what I do (not smoke, use linux), someone else chooses what they do (smoke, use windows). Should a smoker be able to make smoking manditory because they don't like it when people don't smoke? No.


Simply switch the words 'shouldn't the owner of the establishment decide whether they allow smoking or not' to 'shouldn't the owner of the establishment be decide whether they admit Jews / Blacks / Gays / Women' etc. and you should (with a modicum of intelligence) get the point.

If some owner of a pub doesn't want jews / blacks / gays / women in it, that's their choice. I personally think they would be a horrible person for doing that, but it's their pub, not mine.


I was getting so sick of waking up after a night out and smelling the smoke in my room, my clothes, my hair, just from being in a room full of smokers.

Don't go into a room full of smokers then.


As for the matter of whose rights come first; I'm not actually stopping anyone from poisoning themselves in this, so am infringing less upon you (making you go outside for a ***) than you are on me (making be breathe your crap).

If someone wants to smoke in a bar, and the bar allows smoking, they have every right to do so. If you don't like it, don't go there.

blackspyder
May 26th, 2007, 01:35 AM
The day they ban smoking in my little section of the world will be a cold day in hell. (I live in SW Virginia, tobacco country) but I have traveled North of the Mason/Dixon to a few places and I got to tell you you may enjoy being smoke free but you are forcing your will on the smokers as much as they were forcing their will upon you before.

sonny
May 26th, 2007, 01:43 AM
I just wish we could ban fast food since it's just as unhealthy.
I completly agree with this... or put on a heavy tax. In Mexico cigarrets have a 150% tax, although very few people know this, they just wondered why a couple of years ago a pack of cigarrettes cost USD$1 and now it costs USD$2.5. Fastfood should be taxed with something like that, so it can be expensive and you can have more health programs for obbesity and all of it's secondary deseases.

Polygon
May 26th, 2007, 02:01 AM
for the people saying that you should have the "freedom of choice" to smoke, this is a invalid point

when people smoke, not only are they doing them selfs harm, but they are exposing everyone that are around them to the smoke as well. We have chosen to not smoke, why are we being forced to breathe in that nasty smoke just because someone is doing it in a public area that we are in?

and this is a good law, i wish the united states had something like this.

juxtaposed
May 26th, 2007, 03:10 AM
when people smoke, not only are they doing them selfs harm, but they are exposing everyone that are around them to the smoke as well.

If someone doesn't want to be harmed by second hand smoke in a bar or restaurant or something, then they can leave.

The owner of wherever should ultimatly decide if smoking is allowed in their place. If someone wants to smoke and the owner decides to allow smoking in their establishment, then someone should be able to smoke. If someone doesn't like that then they can leave that place.

I know I am saying the exact same thing over again, but it's simple; it's not your establishment to decide the rules for. Nomatter how much you want to force your will onto others, you have no right.

TheMono
May 26th, 2007, 03:17 AM
It comes down to how private the private property such as a bar is.

Do you lose your rights once you decide to run a business on your property? For example, within my house, I do not allow people to smoke, as is my prerogative as it is my property.

I know that some bars in town have rules where you cannot wear gang patches inside. This seems reasonable, they want to protect their customers, and they possess the right to make that choice.

So why do they lose the right to decide on the matter of smoking?

TheMono
May 26th, 2007, 03:22 AM
The most completely stupid arguments ever. Simply switch the words 'shouldn't the owner of the establishment decide whether they allow smoking or not' to 'shouldn't the owner of the establishment be decide whether they admit Jews / Blacks / Gays / Women' etc. and you should (with a modicum of intelligence) get the point. It should not be up to the owners of establishments to decide, no.
Argument over.

The argument is only over if Jews / Blacks / Gays have the ability to make themselves no longer Jews / Blacks / Gays.

Your position on smoking or otherwise is in no way analogous to your physical characteristics, in that to discriminate on the first is to allow or disallow conduct on your property, whereas the latter is to discriminate on who someone IS.

(Please don't start an argument on whether being gay is who you are or a lifestyle choice. It is beyond the scope of this issue)

slimdog360
May 26th, 2007, 03:30 AM
Smoking is the worst thing in the world. I hate people who smoke.

arsenic23
May 26th, 2007, 03:51 AM
And to put these two together... Smoking bans increase my freedom, by allowing me to go to more places and do more things without physical discomfort. So please don't pretend that you're standing up for "freedom" by standing against smoking bans. Freedom cuts two ways here.

Ok, before I say anything I'd like to comment on the fact that freedom and confort have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

First off let me say that from a personal perspective I love public area smoking bans. I must be allergic to something in cigarettes or some such, because I've had a few times when I've litterally stopped breathing in the company of smokers. The smoke from those things just kills me.

But really I don't like the idea of telling people what to do. Morally I don't feel these bans are just, but still I benifit from them personally. People who really complain about these laws using the 'freedom' argument though, really should put their complaint time into a better topic. For instance: seat belt laws that target adults. If someone doesn't wear their seat belt the only person it can hurt is them, if someone doesn't wear their seat belt the only person it can hurt is them. Yet we still have these seat belt laws and they seem to be enforced more and more strictly every year (in the US at least). Smokers obviously hurt themselves at least to some extent, and arguably hurt others, I think we can agrea that they at least discomfort others. So anti-smoking laws definately have the moral high ground when compared to things like seat belt laws and the like.

But places that have banned smoking in bars and pubs seem just rediculous to me. At least where I live people go to bars to drink and smoke in a social setting. That's what I thought bars where for. If they ever put a smoking ban on bars in my local area, I think a ton of people just wouldn't go to them anymore. The bars would loose a ton of money as people would just start getting together at homes and portches to do their drinking and smoking.

IusedTObeSOMEONEelse
May 26th, 2007, 04:12 AM
I do not smoke. With that out of the way, I happen to work in the service industry as a Food Server. New York has had a smoking ban for quite a while. At work, I hated to work the non-smoking section. I found that smokers were more relaxed, and pleasant to wait on. And they were generally better tippers than the non-smokers. A little side joke that I have heard several fellow servers say "Non-smoking, non-drinking & non-tipping"
I personally don't agree with the ban

TheMono
May 26th, 2007, 04:22 AM
Just to carry on the the refutation started by arsenic23 - freedom does not cut two ways, you can just redefine it. Negative freedom is the more commonly accepted definition, where your freedom is defined by what you cannot do.

When one says:
And to put these two together... Smoking bans increase my freedom, by allowing me to go to more places and do more things without physical discomfort. So please don't pretend that you're standing up for "freedom" by standing against smoking bans. Freedom cuts two ways here.

You are advocating positive freedoms, where you no longer define freedom as absolute, and then place limits on it - instead you define freedom as something that the government, or whatever force, should add to. An example is left-liberterianism in the Van Parijs style, where he advocates increased freedom through providing mandatory welfare to every member of society, a basic income level regardless of social situation.

qamelian
May 26th, 2007, 04:33 AM
Agreed, that's why I'm 100% for a total ban but the ban only in public places is better than nothing.

A 100% total ban is utter ********. My area just went with a ban in public places including an establishment that was created as a cigar bar. It's not a place to go for a drink and light up a smoke with your drink. It's a place to go for a good cigar and maybe have a beer with it. It was created to be a smoking only bar, and it is now being prevented from conducting it's primary business function.

I ignore the ban. I'll worry about how my smoking affects my neighbour when my neighbour shows me equal consideration by not polluting the air I breathe with the crap his car spews out.

igknighted
May 26th, 2007, 06:59 AM
For those of you who live in England you'll probably be aware that as of the 1st July smokers will no longer be able to "enjoy" a cigarette in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or any other public enclosed space.

As a smoker attempting to quit I just wanted to know what everyone's opinion of this is? Personally I am indifferent, and in fact as I am attempting to quit I can see this move helping me finally break the habit. But at the same time I know many die hard smokers (bad choice of wording maybe?) who are totally opposed to the prospect.

What's your opinion on the ban? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing?

Are you a resident in a country that has already enforced such a ban? If so how has this ban affected you (either smoker or non-smoker)?

Do you feel it's a good thing?

In New York this is illegal... I don't smoke and for obvious reasons I like this, but even my friends who smoke don't mind, and its now such a habit to go outside to hang out on smoke breaks that we've all come to enjoy the ritual.

a12ctic
May 26th, 2007, 07:26 AM
Definatley a good move, I'm straight edge though, so there is some bias.

kelvin spratt
May 26th, 2007, 08:02 AM
I smoked 40 a day for over 40 years i never did have a problem with not smoking in public
places. I think the ban should extend to driving as well, i don't smoke now and relalise how bad the smell was.

Adamant1988
May 26th, 2007, 02:35 PM
A 100% total ban is utter ********. My area just went with a ban in public places including an establishment that was created as a cigar bar. It's not a place to go for a drink and light up a smoke with your drink. It's a place to go for a good cigar and maybe have a beer with it. It was created to be a smoking only bar, and it is now being prevented from conducting it's primary business function.

I ignore the ban. I'll worry about how my smoking affects my neighbour when my neighbour shows me equal consideration by not polluting the air I breathe with the crap his car spews out.

This is such a childish way of looking at it, you people really show off how immature you are when you say things like this. Cars and cigarettes are almost nothing alike except that they pollute. It is absolutely irrational to ask someone to give up their car, it is NOT irrational to ask someone to stop smoking in public.

1) The fumes from cars are not known carcinogens.
2) Cars are an essential source of livelihood for a lot of people, without a car a lot of people would be out on the street.
3) You own a car, and you drive it, I'm willing to bet.

So.. in contrast to:
1) Smoke from your cigarettes are a known carcinogen, and second hand smoke is completely unfiltered and therefor more dangerous.

2) Cigarettes serve only to cost and to kill, you're paying for your slow miserable death, pack by pack.

3) A smoker has no regard for their body and as such won't care if you're right next to them with a cigarette. So, another person who smokes would be more than OK with you smoking near them. However, you both own cars I bet... and you both use them. It is not fair to say to someone "You're poisoning me with your car's pollution" and then drive away in yours.

As a fourth and slightly OT point:

4) People like you are the reasons these bans exist. Selfish people who's complete and utter disregard for the wellbeing of other humans has taken a back seat to your personal desires. Who cares if you give kids lung problems right?

EdThaSlayer
May 26th, 2007, 04:20 PM
I hope the rest of the world does the same thing. Then finally I can breath the true natural air, instead of that nasty smell of the cancer-sticks.

afljafa
May 26th, 2007, 04:33 PM
I hope the rest of the world does the same thing. Then finally I can breath the true natural air, instead of that nasty smell of the cancer-sticks.

Not sure where we`re at here in Aus. I think it`s getting quite restrictive.

I quit 3 years ago after a good many years. Giving up made me realise just how bad the habit is for the body (and I was convinced I enjoyed smoking) so I think it`s great that this is starting to happen.

smoker
May 26th, 2007, 05:24 PM
This is such a childish way of looking at it, you people really show off how immature you are when you say things like this. Cars and cigarettes are almost nothing alike except that they pollute. It is absolutely irrational to ask someone to give up their car, it is NOT irrational to ask someone to stop smoking in public.

1) The fumes from cars are not known carcinogens.
2) Cars are an essential source of livelihood for a lot of people, without a car a lot of people would be out on the street.
3) You own a car, and you drive it, I'm willing to bet.


1) this is complete twaddle! are you saying pollution from cars is safe? ok, give kids with asthma a hard time is alright with your exhaust fumes!

2) so some people need a car for work, and all the pedestrians and cyclist who want to keep fit, or don't have a car, shouldn't complain, only non-smokers can complain about smoke. if you compain about car drivers you are going to put them out in the street!

3)me, personally, i don't have a car, have no need for one, but i do smoke, but don't worry, i wouldn't presume to light up in front of you, or any other non-smoker, though i wish they'd have the same respect for me when they drive past pushing out exhaust fumes.

Adamant1988
May 26th, 2007, 05:40 PM
1) this is complete twaddle! are you saying pollution from cars is safe? ok, give kids with asthma a hard time is alright with your exhaust fumes!

2) so some people need a car for work, and all the pedestrians and cyclist who want to keep fit, or don't have a car, shouldn't complain, only non-smokers can complain about smoke. if you compain about car drivers you are going to put them out in the street!

3)me, personally, i don't have a car, have no need for one, but i do smoke, but don't worry, i wouldn't presume to light up in front of you, or any other non-smoker, though i wish they'd have the same respect for me when they drive past pushing out exhaust fumes.

1) I suffered from a series of lung problems when I was younger because of my parents smoking, car fumes didn't bother me a bit. Now, I'm not saying they're healthy, but AFAIK my car doesn't require a sticker warning that the fumes may cause cancer... so I'm thinking on the danger scale car-fumes rank sharply below cigarettes.

2) No, but if you BAN car driving, you will put people on the street. pedestrians, cyclists, whatever, have every right to bitch about traffic and all those other things they have to put up with. In fact it's probably because of these people that we are starting to see things like cars running on frenchfry oil.

3) There are only certain places most cars can go (roads) safely, walking along side a road while complaining about car-fumes, is a lot like walking right up next to a person with a lit cigarette and then complaining about the smoke from it.

mips
May 26th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Certain compounds of petrol are known or possible human carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene.

Unleaded fuel is also more of a hazard than leaded fuel if we look past the lead issue.

misfitpierce
May 26th, 2007, 05:58 PM
Im tryin to quit smokin myself... Been 4 days now without a cigarette lol :) but this is an alright law

smoker
May 26th, 2007, 06:01 PM
1) I suffered from a series of lung problems when I was younger because of my parents smoking, car fumes didn't bother me a bit. Now, I'm not saying they're healthy, but AFAIK my car doesn't require a sticker warning that the fumes may cause cancer... so I'm thinking on the danger scale car-fumes rank sharply below cigarettes.

2) No, but if you BAN car driving, you will put people on the street. pedestrians, cyclists, whatever, have every right to bitch about traffic and all those other things they have to put up with. In fact it's probably because of these people that we are starting to see things like cars running on frenchfry oil.

3) There are only certain places most cars can go (roads) safely, walking along side a road while complaining about car-fumes, is a lot like walking right up next to a person with a lit cigarette and then complaining about the smoke from it.

hmm, sorry to hear about your lung problems, and i hope everything is fine with you now, but if you think car fumes are so safe have a look here:
http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm

unfortuately in my country, they didn't have some foresight, and actually built the pedestrian walkways parallel with the roads, how inconsiderate of me to complain, i should stick to walking 'in the middle of nowhere' to get where i'm going!

smoking is slowly being banned throughout the western world, but let's not get hypocritical about it. smoking fumes are bad, ok, car fumes are worse, and the sooner the internal combustion engine is banned the better, people who need transport can always buy an electric car, i'm sure the prices will drop if demand for them becomes a necessity.:D

Adamant1988
May 26th, 2007, 06:02 PM
hmm, sorry to hear about your lung problems, and i hope everything is fine with you now, but if you think car fumes are so safe have a look here:
http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm

unfortuately in my country, they didn't have some foresight, and actually built the pedestrian walkways parallel with the roads, how inconsiderate of me to complain, i should stick to walking 'in the middle of nowhere' to get where i'm going!

smoking is slowly being banned throughout the western world, but let's not get hypocritical about it. smoking fumes are bad, ok, car fumes are worse, and the sooner the internal combustion engine is banned the better, people who need transport can always buy an electric car, i'm sure the prices will drop if demand for them becomes a necessity.:D

Hybrids are becoming the norm here, they still burn gas, but not nearly as much. I'm hoping on Hydrogen in the future.

Spano
May 26th, 2007, 06:08 PM
I would imagine that big oil and the auto industry have caused more death and misery than tobacco ever will. I wish that people would spread their indignation around and realize that, being mortal, everything is bad for you.

mips
May 26th, 2007, 06:14 PM
people who need transport can always buy an electric car, i'm sure the prices will drop if demand for them becomes a necessity.:D

Problem is that you need to charge those batteries. That power could come from coal or nuclear powered plants which is just as bad if not worse. Then there is the issue of the batteries themselves.

We need to look somewhere else instead of electric cars...

smoker
May 26th, 2007, 06:17 PM
Problem is that you need to charge those batteries. That power could come from coal or nuclear powered plants which is just as bad if not worse. Then there is the issue of the batteries themselves.

We need to look somewhere else instead of electric cars...

totally agree, and i think as the world's oil reserves dwindle and petrol becomes more and more expensive, it is only a matter of time before governments start putting real R & D money into researching alternatives.:D

ncappel1
May 26th, 2007, 06:19 PM
They have banned smoking in many public places in Italy too, and I personally am glad that they did. Myself a non-smoker, I never used to be bothered by smoke in bars/restaurants, but now that they are smoke free I notice that my eyes and nose get irritated in somke filled places. I also like not smelling like cigarette smoke when I come home.

Don't mean to get too political, but it is big step for a government to shift its perspective from smoker's rights to non-smoker's rights. I wish the same thing could happen in terms of sustainability. A move to acknowledge that preserving and slowing the degeration of the environment is in everybody's interests, would be great! Even just doing small things, like having efficient lightbulbs, 3 degrees less on the thermostat during winter, buying more from your local farmers market/co-op instead of the super market, or one new plant in the window of each home, can make a big difference! We need to think about the long run!

mips
May 26th, 2007, 06:20 PM
totally agree, and i think as the world's oil reserves dwindle and petrol becomes more and more expensive, it is only a matter of time before governments start putting real R & D money into researching alternatives.:D

There might even be alternatives available but owned by the oil companies. Speculation yes, plausible yes. Just find it hard to believe no one has come up with anything yet.

ncappel1
May 26th, 2007, 06:32 PM
Hybrids are becoming the norm here, they still burn gas, but not nearly as much. I'm hoping on Hydrogen in the future.

Adamant, check this out!

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/

too bad the project has to be put on hiatus. If it weren't, I would save money until I could have that installed. Until then, I'm resolved to drive less. riding my bike will keep me in better shape too!

use a name
May 26th, 2007, 10:47 PM
Smoking should be made illegal completely. No cigarette anywhere. Not even in your own house. Not even in your own bed. It's pure evil. As long as grown men and women are smoking, young kids will start too. Well, maybe their lungs have already been ruined by mom and dad. People die because of this. Young lives are ruined, basically.

Alcohol is a bit more tricky. It's not bad perse. Abuse is bad. Closing cafe's might solve part of the problem, but good education might save more lifes. Hmmm, not sure on this one.

Walking the dog should be made illegal too, but that's for slightly different reasons.

sebbouckaert
May 26th, 2007, 11:00 PM
Smoking should be made illegal completely. No cigarette anywhere.

And by making it illegal we are absolutely sure no more man/women/children wil ever smoke one cigarette again?
Is the drug problem solved just by making a substance illegal? Don't think so.

smoker
May 26th, 2007, 11:17 PM
Walking the dog should be made illegal too, but that's for slightly different reasons.

what if the dog wants to go out for a smoke?
http://www.funny-games.biz/videos/540-smokingdog.html

use a name
May 26th, 2007, 11:27 PM
And by making it illegal we are absolutely sure no more man/women/children wil ever smoke one cigarette again?
Is the drug problem solved just by making a substance illegal? Don't think so.

I know. But it shouldn't be legal, I think. If young kids know they can smoke, they will. If it's illegal, some will still do it, but far less. And there is one big difference with drugs: others are exposed to the smoke as well. As long as a government allows mom and dad to smoke in their own house, they're doing something completely wrong. In public places: just the same, even if full grown lungs are less vulnerable in general.

use a name
May 26th, 2007, 11:31 PM
what if the dog wants to go out for a smoke?
http://www.funny-games.biz/videos/540-smokingdog.html

:lolflag: Nice one!

sebbouckaert
May 26th, 2007, 11:32 PM
1) The fumes from cars are not known carcinogens.
Some of the stuff coming out of unleaded car fumes is definetly carcinogenic.


2) Cars are an essential source of livelihood for a lot of people, without a car a lot of people would be out on the street.
This might be true for some remote areas. However we have a thing called public transport, but most people are just to lazy/ignorant to use it.

3) You own a car, and you drive it, I'm willing to bet.
I own one indeed. However I never use it for distances smaller than 15 Km. Only after this time the engine is hot enough to us in an responsable manner. Driving short distances with cold engine is waste of energy. I always look for an alternative (train, bus) where possible. And I bike a lot.



So.. in contrast to:
1) Smoke from your cigarettes are a known carcinogen, and second hand smoke is completely unfiltered and therefor more dangerous.
But also stronly dilluted by ...air,which makes it less dangerous again.


2) Cigarettes serve only to cost and to kill, you're paying for your slow miserable death, pack by pack.
Like it or not; tobacco is mainly used for the enjoyment of the smoker.


3) A smoker has no regard for their body and as such won't care if you're right next to them with a cigarette. So, another person who smokes would be more than OK with you smoking near them. However, you both own cars I bet... and you both use them. It is not fair to say to someone "You're poisoning me with your car's pollution" and then drive away in yours.

It 's very generalising to say that a smoker doesn't care for his body. I for one do care, I know a lot of non smokers with a much worse lifestile than mine (eating habits, exercise, mental health...). I'm sorry to read about your bad experiences with smokers. I always try to have consideration for the person next to me. When it comes to smoking ore anything els, being courteous and well mannered is what counts, more than rules and regulations.




4) People like you are the reasons these bans exist. Selfish people who's complete and utter disregard for the wellbeing of other humans has taken a back seat to your personal desires. Who cares if you give kids lung problems right?

Fanaticism is the main reason these bans exist. Fanaticism is never a good thing, whatever the point of view. I thing your description matches more to certain politicians than smokers :-)

wmcbrine
May 27th, 2007, 01:20 AM
Taking away someone elses freedom for your conveinence isn't good.Exactly. Which is why you should stop taking away my freedom to breathe clean air just for your convenience of smoking in the restaurant.


Here's an analogy, I guess...

I like linux. I want the government to ban windows, because that would give me the freedom of not having to put up with an operating system that I don't like.

See anything wrong with that?Yeah... it's a really lousy analogy.

If you don't want to put up with Windows, all you have to do is not use it. But if I don't want to put up with smoke, it's not enough to avoid smoking myself.


Should a smoker be able to make smoking manditory because they don't like it when people don't smoke? No.Indeed not. But that's just what they do, every time they smoke in the presence of another person.

juxtaposed
May 27th, 2007, 01:27 AM
Exactly. Which is why you should stop taking away my freedom to breathe clean air just for your convenience of smoking in the restaurant.

You not smelling smoke in (someone elses) restaurant isn't freedom, it's conveinence.

You having the choice to smoke or not is freedom.

You want to take away the restaurant owner's freedom to choose whether people can smoke in their restaurant for your conveinence/preference.


If you don't want to put up with Windows, all you have to do is not use it. But if I don't want to put up with smoke, it's not enough to avoid smoking myself.

Is it too hard for you to not go to restaurants that let people smoke?

If you wan't to smoke, go to a restaurant where they allow you to smoke. If you don't want to smoke, but are fine with smoke, go to any restaurant. If you don't want to smoke, and arn't fine with others smoking, then go to a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking.

Only the restaurant owner should decide if smoking is allowed; not the government, not the people.


Yeah... it's a really lousy analogy.

Not really.

wmcbrine
May 27th, 2007, 02:11 AM
You not smelling smoke in (someone elses) restaurant isn't freedom, it's conveinence.Sorry, I don't agree.

As for the freedom of the restaurant owner... I think they should be free to allow smoking like they should be free to serve tainted meat.

And if we're weighing conveniences, I think the amount I'm put out by smokers is quite a bit more than the amount I put them out (literally -- they just go outside to smoke). Subjective, I know; I don't feel the pain of their addiction. I only know my own pain from their poison.


Is it too hard for you to not go to restaurants that let people smoke?That question could just as well be rephrased as "Is it too hard for you to not go to restaurants?". In the absence of a ban, there were essentially no non-smoking restaurants.

seshomaru samma
May 27th, 2007, 02:22 AM
In China they only recently banned smoking on public transportation...
I have never been to a restaurant that didn't have an ashtray except the odd Buddhist -vegetarian restaurant.

juxtaposed
May 27th, 2007, 02:33 AM
That question could just as well be rephrased as "Is it too hard for you to not go to restaurants?". In the absence of a ban, there were essentially no non-smoking restaurants.

Well, since a lot of people really hate the smell of smoke - including me - they would be loosing alot of business.

Anyway; "Oh no, that restaurant lets people do something I don't like, oh the humanity - the government should force them to acomadate me!"


And if we're weighing conveniences, I think the amount I'm put out by smokers is quite a bit more than the amount I put them out (literally -- they just go outside to smoke). Subjective, I know; I don't feel the pain of their addiction. I only know my own pain from their poison.

I'm weighing freedom - freedom means alot more to me then conveinence. The opposite is true though for most of the population of western countries it seems.

If you owned a restaurant and made it non smoking, would it be fair for a smoker to force you to make smoking manditory because they thought it was better? Why does noone answer my questions like that? :P

frup
May 27th, 2007, 03:12 AM
For those of you who live in England you'll probably be aware that as of the 1st July smokers will no longer be able to "enjoy" a cigarette in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or any other public enclosed space.


In New Zealand we have had this kind of law for quite sometime now, and while it feels odd at first, having to go outside and all, you get used to it very fast. It's quite nice, even as a smoker, not having such a smokey environment. The downside is that not all pubs etc have been designed to provide shelter and so when it's raining/very cold it gets very uncomfortable.

I believe a recent study found that the percentage of people who had actually quit smoking as a result of this law was in fact very very low. At least my clothes don't get holes in them from brushing up against someones smoke though.

I have found 2 bars that let us smoke "inside", but these are borderline, one has a courtyard with covering that extends to the walls so it still feels like you are inside. Another one has a deck which is fully enclosed most of the way with plastic sheets.

afljafa
May 27th, 2007, 03:32 AM
Interesting that people are bringing up smoking and freedom in the same sentences. When you smoke you are certainly not free.

Slave to the habit, slave to the addiction and money slave to the tobacco companies.

DirtDawg
May 27th, 2007, 03:36 AM
As an ex-smoker, I think it's rediculous for government to regulate adults in this manner, Frankly, cars are far more damaging than any smoker, but you don't see them getting banned (or even regulated for that matter).

afljafa
May 27th, 2007, 03:49 AM
I'm weighing freedom - freedom means alot more to me then conveinence. The opposite is true though for most of the population of western countries it seems.

If you owned a restaurant and made it non smoking, would it be fair for a smoker to force you to make smoking manditory because they thought it was better? Why does noone answer my questions like that? :P

Because it`s a silly question.

It`s not about being better. This is an occupational health and safety issue. It`s been proven that passive smoking causes cancer. When I send my employees of to work it`s a requirement that I provide them with a safe working environment - this is no different.

Besides - the habit stinks.

qamelian
May 27th, 2007, 04:20 AM
I don't ask people to go broke for me, or give up their livelihood. Cars are an important part of a lot of peoples' lives and while I do absolutely hope for clean fuel cars in the future, that would be asking too much today. Asking people to stop smoking cigarettes in closed environments where the public, or other non-smokers, may be is not too much. There is a difference.

Okay, so you draw the line there. I draw it somewhere else. If smoking should be banned for health reasons, so should drinking coffee, eating bacon, and a whole host of other known health risks. And stop smoking in public places when people show me the same respect and stop wearing colognes and perfumes in public which cause me to have a sever allergic reaction. Super. What else can we ban.

qamelian
May 27th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Smoking should be made illegal completely. No cigarette anywhere. Not even in your own house. Not even in your own bed. It's pure evil. As long as grown men and women are smoking, young kids will start too. Well, maybe their lungs have already been ruined by mom and dad. People die because of this. Young lives are ruined, basically.

Alcohol is a bit more tricky. It's not bad perse. Abuse is bad. Closing cafe's might solve part of the problem, but good education might save more lifes. Hmmm, not sure on this one.

Walking the dog should be made illegal too, but that's for slightly different reasons.

You can tell me not to smoke in my own house when you start paying the mortgage. And grow up: It isn't evil. No more so than having a beer or buying a lottery. If having a cigarette is what you would call evil, I'd appreciate you staying out of my neighbour, because you're just plain scary.

afljafa
May 27th, 2007, 04:25 AM
Okay, so you draw the line there. I draw it somewhere else. If smoking should be banned for health reasons, so should drinking coffee, eating bacon, and a whole host of other known health risks. And stop smoking in public places when people show me the same respect and stop wearing colognes and perfumes in public which cause me to have a sever allergic reaction. Super. What else can we ban.


Oh please - Bacon and Coffee. What are the passive effects of those items. Flatulence.

ICUR2Ys
May 27th, 2007, 06:19 AM
Nobody has mentioned the fact that people have to have equal treatment under the law. So if a business owner (restaurant) has to have a non smoking establishment, then another business owner (bar) must also have a non smoking establishment. If one business owner can have certain freedom under the law then other business owners can sue for equal rights.

use a name
May 27th, 2007, 08:24 AM
You can tell me not to smoke in my own house when you start paying the mortgage. And grow up: It isn't evil. No more so than having a beer or buying a lottery. If having a cigarette is what you would call evil, I'd appreciate you staying out of my neighbour, because you're just plain scary.

It's people smoking in front of their kids that scare me. Maybe you do, maybe you do not, but at least that exact case should be completely illegal.

TheMono
May 27th, 2007, 08:47 AM
Smoking should be made illegal completely. No cigarette anywhere. Not even in your own house. Not even in your own bed. It's pure evil. As long as grown men and women are smoking, young kids will start too. Well, maybe their lungs have already been ruined by mom and dad. People die because of this. Young lives are ruined, basically.

Alcohol is a bit more tricky. It's not bad perse. Abuse is bad. Closing cafe's might solve part of the problem, but good education might save more lifes. Hmmm, not sure on this one.

Walking the dog should be made illegal too, but that's for slightly different reasons.

People like you honestly terrify me. It is depressing that the idea of a raving ideologue is so associated with the right, as the left is every bit as capable of it.. People just need to accept that other people have differing views. It is the sort of lack of introspection that we see in the above post that causes things like invading Iraq - can't people just accept difference? While I don't agree with smoking bans, I can see the argument for them. I find it very hard to see the argument for banning somebody smoking in their own bed.

Alterax
May 27th, 2007, 08:52 AM
Both sides of this seem pretty heated, but I think there is a natural system of checks and balances if the laws leave the people be.

My reasoning is this: People do have a choice as to which environments they wish to be in. There is no one pointing a gun to their head and saying, "You will go to this place instead of the other." We, at least in the US and 75% of the civilized world, can decide if we want to go to the bar that allows smoking or the bar that does not.

The owners of the establishment have a choice to make on this: Which clients do they want to serve? If they choose smokers, they may lose the nonsmokers. If they choose the nonsmokers, they may lose the smokers. This is actually good for the economy because where a business loses some customers, other businesses can pick them up, and if no other businesses will cater to them, there is an opening for an entrepreneur.

But what the smoking ban amounts to is someone using government--which is in and of itself a negative (but necessary) institution which should only safeguard the basic rights of the individual--as a weapon by which to force their own beliefs on others. Of course, in the US, this is rampant. Self-appointed do-gooders (with usually dubious motives at best) feel that they have every right to look out for everyone else's good by using the government to bully those that disagree with them.

They feel the government has a right to force their own beliefs on its citizens, and that they can use it to dictate whether or not others can divorce (finally dying down but some groups are pushing for stricter regulations (!) on marriage), who they can marry (until the 1960s in the US, caucasians and other minorities were not allowed to marry outside of their race, and we see the same arguments nowdays about whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry). They use government to force religion on others (what else is the so-called "bring back prayer to public schools" BUT religious groups trying to force religious beliefs on atheists, freethinkers, and people of less-popular religious beliefs?)

The smoking ban is no different; the smokers and the non-smokers should have the same rights, but the non-smokers seem to have convinced themselves that their rights extend to wherever they decide to go, whereas the smokers don't enjoy the same freedom. Boundaries are only allowed when the non-smokers set them, whereas the smokers are somehow in the wrong for defending their own rights.

So do you not see how one-sided this is? Non-smokers are the ones that get to tell the smokers what to do; smokers are treated as second-class citizens when in reality they are merely making their own choices in life.

If you are a smoker, don't smoke where the business owners request you don't. If you are a non-smoker, why exactly are you going somewhere where you are exposing yourself to smoke? It's all simple--excruciatingly simple.

So I don't agree with the ban one bit. Public buildings, such as the post office and the courts, should default to non-smoking because there are no alternatives. But as far as the rest goes, it should be up to the owner of the business to decide. And if someone doesn't like it, that is fine. They can go somewhere else where they won't be bothered.

The bottom line is that the philosopher Blaise Pascal said it best: "When virtues are pursued to extreme, vices emerge."

--Alterax

TheMono
May 27th, 2007, 09:46 AM
Your problem is your basic premise as to the role of the government - what justifies it having the 'night watchman' form you advocate? Unfortunately your entire argument is based around that premise, and it is a relatively contentious one.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your sentiment, but for the purpose of discourse...

alliantdevil
May 27th, 2007, 09:52 AM
I'm a smoker, but I absolutely believe that smoking is a huge public health problem in the United States. I've been a smoker for 20 years, and do not plan to quit anytime soon.

Even so, I think the charges of secondhand smoke are overblown. I do think that smoke is obnoxious to non-smokers, my Mom smoked when I was a kid, and I constantly had headaches from it. Nonetheless, I think these are horrible laws.

Owners of public establishments should have the choice as to whether smoking is allowed or not. If the government wants to promote non-smoking establishments, they should not pass a law preventing it. Instead, they should promote it by including some incentive for restaurants/bars to prohibit smoking on their own.

In my city, we passed a law three years ago that required a separate area for smokers, with stringent requirements as to air purification and glass dividers between the areas. These modifications to restaurants cost thousands of dollars, but were worth it to establishments who did not want to lose the business to a neighboring state. Last year, the state probitied smoking in every restaurant. This negated the value of any investment made by the restaurants, and we now have several restaurants that have now been forced out of business, not good for a city that is turning into a ghost town as it is.

Yes it is a health problem, people shouldn't smoke. I hope less people are picking up smoking ttoday than 10 years ago. But, it should be up to pubs/restaurants, etc to make this decision on their own. A non-smoker has a right to choose where they want to eat, but they do not have a right to force a business owner to accomidate them. That should be the business's choice, not the non-smoker's.

Next year maybe someone should put red meat on the ballot too, and perhaps a law that says obese people shouldn't be allowed to eat in restaurants.

I actually agree with those statements. It should be completely up to the business owner to allow it or not. if you have a problem with second hand smoke, guess what? Don't go to a place that allows smoking. It's as simple as that. You, as a consumer, are able to actively decide where to take your business and if there are enough non-smokers that stop going to places that allow it, the business will have to change its stance or lose profit (or possibly even go out of business).

I, personally, am a smoker (mainly only while drinking) and can agree with not allowing smoking in the restaurant section of an establishment. The way things were for quite some time were that if there was a smoking section it had to have completely separate ventilation than that of the non-smoking section. Since then the law has now been changed to ban it all together, and that honestly just does not make any sense whatsoever in my opinion.

The fact that I have seen many business owners complain about such laws impacting their business for the worse does show that there are far more smokers than most might realize and if that's the case I honestly have no idea how these types of laws get passed at all.


that's just my 2 cents

ENN0
May 27th, 2007, 10:01 AM
I agree with the ban..its happend here in Ireland and its great,lots of people have died from passive smoking and if it was uo to the owner of the buisness to decide it would bever happen becuase of the loss of buisness!!

darell_m
May 27th, 2007, 10:18 AM
If you are die-hard smoker come to Egypt, as even areas marked" no smoking" are ignored by the general public. Foreign brands cost 7.50 LE (about 75p UK) or about $1.30 US$ and local brands cost 4.50 LE. Of course if you do smoke, the pollution in Cairo will add to your cough. :(

afljafa
May 27th, 2007, 10:21 AM
If you are a smoker, don't smoke where the business owners request you don't. If you are a non-smoker, why exactly are you going somewhere where you are exposing yourself to smoke? It's all simple--excruciatingly simple.



Rubbish - it`s not simple at all. Up until recently here in Australia I would have excluded myself from the Pub scene entirely based on that argument.

alliantdevil
May 27th, 2007, 10:27 AM
Rubbish - it`s not simple at all. Up until recently here in Australia I would have excluded myself from the Pub scene entirely based on that argument.

imo, you can't call that "rubbish". From the above statement you obviously did not use your buying power as a smart consumer by not patronizing the places that allow it. And to say that that isn't an effective means of getting business to change their minds is a ridiculous statement since there have been many cases where a group of people have boycotted and won.

MrHorus
May 27th, 2007, 10:44 AM
.
Boundaries are only allowed when the non-smokers set them, whereas the smokers are somehow in the wrong for defending their own rights.


Sorry, smokers don't actually *have* any rights in this regard.

There is neither a British law nor an EU Directive that gives someone the "right" to blow carcinogenic and toxic smoke in my face.

However there ARE several Scottish, British and European laws that assure me of my right to a healthy and safe environment both at work and at home :)

People will adapt and get over it - we have had a smoking ban here in Scotland for over a year and it's no biggie. People still go to pubs and clubs and enjoy themselves - they just go outside to smoke.

FWIW i'm an ex smoker who quit several years before there was any talk of a ban.

afljafa
May 27th, 2007, 10:46 AM
imo, you can't call that "rubbish". From the above statement you obviously did not use your buying power as a smart consumer by not patronizing the places that allow it. And to say that that isn't an effective means of getting business to change their minds is a ridiculous statement since there have been many cases where a group of people have boycotted and won.

There where never any that prohibited it. So I could have boycotted all on my little lonesome and nobody would have given a rats ****.

MrHorus
May 27th, 2007, 10:57 AM
There where never any that prohibited it. So I could have boycotted all on my little lonesome and nobody would have given a rats ****.

*nods*

When I used to live in Glasgow prior to the smoking ban, there was only one pub that prohibited it and even then it only opened a few years ago.

b0ng0
May 27th, 2007, 11:09 AM
We've had the ban up here for a while now and there really hasn't been any problem with it. It doesn't stop people from smoking but what it does do is prevent non-smokers from having to bear the side-effects (I don't mean passive smoking, I more refer to reeking clothes) from other peoples' habbits. I don't think it's fair for people to argue that it's taking away their liberties - you can still smoke just not in certain places, just like you can have a w**k at home but not in my carbonara when i'm eating at Papa Johns.. :p

MrHorus
May 27th, 2007, 11:12 AM
I don't think it's fair for people to argue that it's taking away their liberties

As I say, there is no "liberty" to puff carcinogens into my face in a shared public place and if anyone wants to challenge that or say it's a breach of their human rights to ban smoking, then I challenge them to point to the specific piece of legislation that grants them that right.

mousejunkie
May 27th, 2007, 11:56 AM
I'm a smoker. As far as health is concerned, my lungs are fine (according to various doctors).

What makes tobacco worse are the additives. The worst and most addictive is what seems to be one of the most popular brands worldwide (the one with the cowboy). Fortunately I never got hooked on that brand. But I have found that people hooked on it go more out of their way to get it when they run out… going out in the middle of a cold night to find the next open garage… . It also leaves a worse odour on clothes, hair and in apartments. The least “evil” is untreated tobacco. The smokers’ addiction is then only to the nicotine - it is usually the additives, which is why people get hooked on one brand and don’t get the satisfaction out of smoking another.

I was rolling my own with untreated tobacco for a while (can’t get it where I live now but I’m working on the tobacconist). After the first few weeks, I smoked far less than with ready-mades with additives - I did not plan it, it just happened. My clothes and hands didn’t stink anymore and neither did my apartment the next morning, even if I did not empty out my ashtray at night. Even non smokers were surprised.

As far as smoking bans are concerned, I find they are another reflection of how things in society are handled the wrong way. Smokers are private individuals, making them easier targets for anyone else who is frustrated about something. How about if the non-smoking lobbies around the globe were to concentrate their time, energy, efforts and money on tackling things like emissions caused by burning fossil fuels? They will never - imho opinion it is because they are too weak and dare not tackle big corporations. Furthermore it might make things more uncomfortable for themselves "Let's fly to an anti-smoking convention half way around the globe and dump a few tons of pollutants on the way". What about microwaves, mobile phones… . No they won’t. Let the public be divided in yet another way, smokers and non-smokers. Personally my respiratory system feels really bad after spending time in a congested city. My clothes and hair become dirtier as well.

Like waiting at a bus stop does not cause any harm… uh-huh, right.

Why don’t anti-smoking campaigners do something for the world and stop fighting other members of the public just to satisfy their need of feeling that they are doing something important, instead of picking on a opponent who can’t be bothered to fight back? lmao.

@ Fellow smokers: Got get yourself untreated tobacco and stop buying additives. It might take a week or two of getting used to the taste, but it's worth it.

afljafa
May 27th, 2007, 12:19 PM
I'm a smoker. As far as health is concerned, my lungs are fine (according to various doctors).



Great, it`s really wonderful that your lungs are fine. However I still do not wish to share your habit with you when I sit to eat or go down the pub for a quiety.

If I did I would have never quit the habit.

MrHorus
May 27th, 2007, 12:21 PM
As far as smoking bans are concerned, I find they are another reflection of how things in society are handled the wrong way. Smokers are private individuals, making them easier targets for anyone else who is frustrated about something.

They are indeed private individuals and what they do in private homes is their business - smoking in the home is completely out of the scope of any smoking ban that I know off - the Scottish one extends to public places for example.

The ban was brought into force due to an public consultation that showed people were overwhelmingly in favour of it, plus the spectre of being sued by workers was clearly another factor.

There are laws predating the smoking ban that assure me of my right to a safe working environment and this is why it is unacceptable for be to be exposed to hazards such as toxic gases, asbestos, dangerous wiring - anything that is a risk to my health. The challenge for bar owners was that they were not assuring their staff of a safe working environment and the inaction of the Government on this left both the Government and bar owners open to action through the European courts.

I assure you this is nothing to do with smokers being an "easy target" - people genuinely want a clean and safe envrionment to work in and they genuinely want to go and relax after work and at the weekend in a place where they can actually breath and not wake up the next morning with a cough and with clothes that reek of smoke.

MonkeyBoy
May 27th, 2007, 12:38 PM
http://www.godsmokesfags.com/heaven/

use a name
May 27th, 2007, 12:44 PM
People like you honestly terrify me. It is depressing that the idea of a raving ideologue is so associated with the right, as the left is every bit as capable of it.. People just need to accept that other people have differing views. It is the sort of lack of introspection that we see in the above post that causes things like invading Iraq - can't people just accept difference? While I don't agree with smoking bans, I can see the argument for them. I find it very hard to see the argument for banning somebody smoking in their own bed.

It's not really because of you smoking in your own bed. Indeed, I don't care (ok, I do care that people ruin their own lifes, but, indeed, that's their own choice). It's when people ruin the health of others (their children for example) where things go wrong. That should be prevented IMHO, which can only be done with a complete ban.

mousejunkie
May 27th, 2007, 02:32 PM
One of the points I was trying to make is that I have yet to see anyone speaking for a ban on smoking, speaking for a ban on fossile fules (car fumes) because it means giving up one's comfort of driving for example.

That is just a direct example. Then there are all the indirect examples caused by consumer habits.

As far as bars, restaurants are concerned, it should be up to the owners. If the smoke in a place of leisure bothers you, don't go there.

Smoking in an office/ place of work or other places one has to go to on the other hand is a differnet matter.

Edit: Even as a smoker, I prefer a smoke free dinner

plb
May 27th, 2007, 03:36 PM
For those of you who live in England you'll probably be aware that as of the 1st July smokers will no longer be able to "enjoy" a cigarette in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or any other public enclosed space.

As a smoker attempting to quit I just wanted to know what everyone's opinion of this is? Personally I am indifferent, and in fact as I am attempting to quit I can see this move helping me finally break the habit. But at the same time I know many die hard smokers (bad choice of wording maybe?) who are totally opposed to the prospect.

What's your opinion on the ban? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing?

Are you a resident in a country that has already enforced such a ban? If so how has this ban affected you (either smoker or non-smoker)?

Do you feel it's a good thing?

This has been in effect in NYC for a few years now. At the same time, they also increased the price of cigarettes by almost $2. Just another way to try and stop people from smoking. Cigarettes now go for over $7 here. It use to bother me, but I quit smoking last year so I don't care that much anymore.

DoctorMO
May 27th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Cars and cigarettes are almost nothing alike except that they pollute. It is absolutely irrational to ask someone to give up their car, it is NOT irrational to ask someone to stop smoking in public.

See I would ask people to give up their cars, at least for doing some things. they seems awfully attached to them and without them perhaps they'd advocate the building of railways. but thats another topic.

1) The fumes from cars are not known carcinogens - They are known to be, benzien rings are known, the difference is that you don't drive your car inside a closed off building.
2) Cars are an essential source of livelihood for a lot of people, without a car a lot of people would be out on the street - Only in america could you be on the street for not working, what a pitiable society.
3) You own a car, and you drive it, I'm willing to bet - No I advocate railways (see above)

While I refute some of the above things I'm still 100% sure that smoking is immoral and no one has any right to do it; no one should be allowed the freedom to do it. it's just wrong.


As far as bars, restaurants are concerned, it should be up to the owners. If the smoke in a place of leisure bothers you, don't go there.

It's discrimination, a health hazard to workers at the bar and something the manager never has to see or experience. I call giving them the option to poison their staff wrong and immoral.

juxtaposed
May 27th, 2007, 06:08 PM
Oh please - Bacon and Coffee. What are the passive effects of those items. Flatulence.

Caffeine is addictive and has many other bad health effects. But I don't want to ban coffee, as it is someones choice whether they drink it or not.


(but necessary)

Government isn't nessecary, certainly not.


The smoking ban is no different; the smokers and the non-smokers should have the same rights, but the non-smokers seem to have convinced themselves that their rights extend to wherever they decide to go, whereas the smokers don't enjoy the same freedom. Boundaries are only allowed when the non-smokers set them, whereas the smokers are somehow in the wrong for defending their own rights.

I agree.


Up until recently here in Australia I would have excluded myself from the Pub scene entirely based on that argument.

Thats extremely stupid.

"Hey, you all, you're doing something I don't like and I want to join your scene, acomadate me now!"


There is neither a British law nor an EU Directive that gives someone the "right" to blow carcinogenic and toxic smoke in my face.

Rights dont come from laws.

And has anyone actually blew smoke in your face?


As I say, there is no "liberty" to puff carcinogens into my face in a shared public place and if anyone wants to challenge that or say it's a breach of their human rights to ban smoking, then I challenge them to point to the specific piece of legislation that grants them that right.

Again, rights dont come from laws.


However I still do not wish to share your habit with you when I sit to eat or go down the pub for a quiety.

Like people have said, you are not forced to go eat at a place with smoke.


The ban was brought into force due to an public consultation that showed people were overwhelmingly in favour of it,

Just because the public wants something doesn't make it right.


That should be prevented IMHO, which can only be done with a complete ban.

Banning something doesn't get rid of it.


At the same time, they also increased the price of cigarettes by almost $2. Just another way to try and stop people from smoking.

No, it's because the government wants more money.


a health hazard to workers at the bar and something the manager never has to see or experience.

If someone is worried about health concerns of smoke, shouldn't they take responsibility for themselves and not work at a place like that?

It's just so annoying when people try to force others to acomadate them.

mousejunkie
May 27th, 2007, 06:13 PM
don't we all love partial quotes.

A person who does not like the smell of cows or pigs, should not work on a farm.

By the way. Nobody seems to think about the garbage-men when it comes to health either. Or does everyone make sure that they only produce non toxic waste or waste that does not rot in a health hazardous way... ok I'm beginning to split hairs, but I'm good at that.


While I refute some of the above things I'm still 100% sure that smoking is immoral and no one has any right to do it; no one should be allowed the freedom to do it. it's just wrong.

So you are vegan, only ride a bicycle made from recycled material and only oil the parts with plant based oils, your clothes a dyed with plant based dyes, you only use natural soap, etc.....!? "Let he who is without... , throw the first stone". "Sweep on your own doorstep first..." and so on

menetekel
May 27th, 2007, 06:18 PM
I love a nice pint - but I hate having to inhale other people's smoke while I'm drinking it.

bonzodog
May 27th, 2007, 06:23 PM
Ireland has had this law for 2 years nearly now, and it has been the best thing that ever happened. When I visit the UK, I will finally be able to walk into a pub and not end up with my clothes smelling of smoke!

The irish thought it would really affect things like the pub trade when it was introduced, but it didn't have quite as much an effect as first thought.

juxtaposed
May 27th, 2007, 06:30 PM
While I refute some of the above things I'm still 100% sure that smoking is immoral and no one has any right to do it; no one should be allowed the freedom to do it. it's just wrong.

Can't believe I missed this self righteous comment - You don't want to do something, don't do it. You have absolutlely 100% no right at all ever to tell others what they can and can't do.

There are tons of things I don't like and don't do, so I don't do them. When people have such a will to dominate the lives and actions of others the world falls apart.

What if someone thought smoking was the best things since... Anything, and thought it should be manditory. Just as much as you hate it, they love it. Should they be able to force others to smoke? You wan't to force others not to smoke, it's the exact same thing. Taking away the right of someone to have soverignty over their own body and mind.

aktiwers
May 27th, 2007, 07:06 PM
It's horrible that they're doing that.

I don't smoke, that is my choice. I am not going to force anyone else to choose the same, they can make their choice on their own. Owners of bars, restaurants, etc should decide whether they allow smoking in their establishment.

Agree... though I do smoke.

Dylnuge
May 27th, 2007, 10:24 PM
I disagree with it being just the smoker's choice. Smoking in your house is fine, but it is hazerdous to others health as well, in fact even more so, since the smoke others breathe in is unfiltered. I don't care if someone smokes in their own house, as long as I am not around.

It should not be banned because it is hazerdous to someone's health, but because it is hazerdous to others. Just like drinking is legal (if you are over 21, but smoking is illegal if you are underage as well), but drinking and driving, which kills people, is not. Therefore, smoking in public places=bad, smoking alone=fine.

pulver
May 27th, 2007, 10:53 PM
problem is smokers generally don't respect non-smokers.. or maybe that is people generally don't respect other people.. anyway it applies to smoking.. it bothers me because I CANNOT CHOOSE not to come in contact with it.. when entering buildings at school for example, or when just opening my balcony door to get some fresh air.. everyone should have a choice in this.. a ban may not be a bad thing for the people working in bars, restaurants and similar environments.. anyway how much trouble is it really to go outside for a schmoke every now and then?

smoker
May 27th, 2007, 11:25 PM
if people were countries, what do you think should be done with countries that heavily pollute the world?

perhaps some of indignant anti-smoking lobby here would propose nuking offending neighbours (one way to cut down the amount of cigarette smokers in the world, i suppose)

now where do we start...:-) :-) :-)

pulver
May 29th, 2007, 09:42 AM
now where do we start...:-) :-) :-)

stay off the pot :p

karhulitos
May 29th, 2007, 10:23 AM
3 days left to smoke in bars and restaurants, on Friday it's gone. Choices are isolated, air-conditioned place (no drinks allowed) or no smoking inside.
Some places may have 2 year switch-over period if they heavily invested in air conditioning in the first phase couple of years ago when 50% of floor in restaurant needed to be smoke

Timing is good, this doesn't hurt that much in summer and after few months I guess no one remembers they smoked inside a restaurant.

I'm a smoker but I look forward to this change. Perhaps I manage to quit..

brim4brim
May 29th, 2007, 11:00 AM
For those of you who live in England you'll probably be aware that as of the 1st July smokers will no longer be able to "enjoy" a cigarette in pubs, clubs, restaurants, or any other public enclosed space.

As a smoker attempting to quit I just wanted to know what everyone's opinion of this is? Personally I am indifferent, and in fact as I am attempting to quit I can see this move helping me finally break the habit. But at the same time I know many die hard smokers (bad choice of wording maybe?) who are totally opposed to the prospect.

What's your opinion on the ban? Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing?

Are you a resident in a country that has already enforced such a ban? If so how has this ban affected you (either smoker or non-smoker)?

Do you feel it's a good thing?

I live in Ireland. Its bloody fantastic IMO!

I'm a non-smoker but even the smokers I know are happy the bans in place now because after they finish their cigerette, they come back inside and the air isn't clogged with smoke.

I also know some people that work in pubs and they have much more energy after work since the ban came in.

It is absolutely a good idea and should be in force everywhere as far as I'm concerned.

rado_london
June 27th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Yep let's get rid of smokers completely :D

I would love to get rid of you :D :D And I will have a cigarette over your dead body. In this case I aint causing damage as you cant breathe the smoke :D :D :D

Dont take it personally but smokers are normal people addicted to drugs :D:D

ice60
June 27th, 2007, 01:44 AM
i don't know what to think. i disagreed with the hunting ban, even though i don't go hunting, because it's wrong to take people's freedoms away. i'd feel the same about banning smoking, but there is the argument about second-hand smoke (or what ever it's called) harming others

i do smoke, but only infrequently so it won't affect me much. i've thought about it a bit more now and the ban is wrong! is there a petition i can sign somewhere? :D

DoctorMO
June 27th, 2007, 02:37 AM
Dont take it personally but smokers are normal people addicted to drugs

By jove he's got it, we should just feel sorry for smokers and their terrible plight in life.


i do smoke, but only infrequently so it won't affect me much. i've thought about it a bit more now and the ban is wrong! is there a petition i can sign somewhere?

Which logic moral circuit did you have to destroy to allow such a reasoning? is it ok if I randomly go around with a small knife and cut people ever so slightly? It won't kill them and saying I can't is against my freedom to hurt others for no good reason.

"For goodness sake mankind"

ice60
June 27th, 2007, 03:37 AM
Which logic moral circuit did you have to destroy to allow such a reasoning? is it ok if I randomly go around with a small knife and cut people ever so slightly? It won't kill them and saying I can't is against my freedom to hurt others for no good reason.

"For goodness sake mankind"

i love how we disagree with everything because i almost always deal with facts so i'm generally right. however, i came to that view on selfish grounds not moral :D

DoctorMO
June 27th, 2007, 04:23 AM
i love how we disagree with everything because i almost always deal with facts so i'm generally right. however, i came to that view on selfish grounds not moral

Not very arrogant then? I, mostly deal with facts coloured by my own subjective view point; and unless your some kind of god I highly suspect you colour your "facts" too.

As for the smoking, I can't believe that society lets people get away with immoral selfish choices, having the view point is one thing; but partaking in it? disgraceful.

LookTJ
June 27th, 2007, 05:21 AM
it's a good thing for two reasons:

1. it's healthy
2. it helps stop polluting the air.

joep
June 27th, 2007, 07:36 AM
I think its about time roll on July 1st. I only drink in pubs with nonsmoking areas and smokers regularly ignore the signs and light up. Whats the fuss about? If you want to smoke go outside.

gnomeuser
June 27th, 2007, 07:49 AM
I think it's an infringement on peoples personal freedom to smoke. Here smokers are generally polite enough to ask if you mind them smoking so not to bother anyone unless you're in a bar where it is expected that you don't mind and honestly if you do.. tell the barkeeper, if he gets many complaints he'll ban smoking or create a seperate smoke free environment as it makes good business sense.

By waging a war on smokers I think we only hurt the chance of them being polite when in public as they'll feel like they are being punished for their choice of legal drug use. You cannot legislate politeness or kindness, it has to come from mutural respect.

joep
June 27th, 2007, 08:01 AM
I wouldn't say banning smoking indoors is waging a war. Smoking indoors takes away my right not to smoke. Why should smokers rights over rule nonsmokers. As I said in other post I only drink in pubs with nonsmoking areas . But as the smoking areas fill, the smokers feel they have a right" to annex the non-smoking section. The signs are useless without some form of sanction.

Footissimo
June 27th, 2007, 08:28 AM
I'm an ex-smoker (of 3 months) and I now can't bear the smell of smoke..but even I can see that the soon-to-be public smoking ban is completely OTT. It should just be the case that there has to be provision for non-smokers in public places. I would be a little more convinced if the evidence for problems from secondhand smoke was a little more convincing, but it isn't.

Circus-Killer
June 27th, 2007, 08:42 AM
I do believe some form of bans on smoking is okay, but it needs to be done so fairly. I've read post about your rights as a non-smoker, but what I hate is the fact that you are robbing us of our rights. Who the hell are you to tell me where and when to smoke. I don't tell people they have to smoke. I don't mind not being able to smoke in non-smoking areas. I respect non-smokers, yet they are the ones with the least respect.

Currently in South Africa, you can't smoke in most public-enclosed places, however, earlier this year the government wanted to ban smoking in any public area (including just standing on the side of the road). Now to me, this is pushing it. I read that one poster was complaining how he cant go on his balcony to get fresh air. Trust me, that is not because of smokers. You want fresh air outside, stop using electricity, cars, anything that requires burning fossil fuels. It was ironic, during this time when government was still deciding, I was standing on the side of the road having a cig, when a big *** bus drove past leaving behind a thick black smog. And people are complaining about my little cigarrette.C'mon, you cannot say that having a cigarrette outside pollutes nearly as much as cars, factories, power stations etc.

But that isn't even the point. The point is that the world is filled with too many rules as it is, and the world has only become worse because of it. To take away my right to smoke, is to take away my rights completely. We do not live in a dictatorship driven world, where one persons say is better than the other. I respect non-smokers. If I visit a non-smoker, I wont smoke in his house. If I am having a cigarrette outside and the smoke seems to be bothering the person next to me, I take a couple of steps away from the person. If I can be considerate to non-smokers, I think non-smokers should show the same amount of consideration. But lets face it, despite what a lot of these other posters have said, non-smokers are the most hipocritical, inconsiderate people. They want things there way all the time.

Anyways, we all know why non-smokers are so inconsiderate and mean....
I'm tired of them hassling about emphasima, asthma and heart-attacks.....
the truth is SMOKING IS COOL AND THEY KNOW IT!

afljafa
June 27th, 2007, 09:26 AM
I think it's an infringement on peoples personal freedom to smoke. Here smokers are generally polite enough to ask if you mind them smoking so not to bother anyone unless you're in a bar where it is expected that you don't mind and honestly if you do.. tell the barkeeper, if he gets many complaints he'll ban smoking or create a seperate smoke free environment as it makes good business sense.

By waging a war on smokers I think we only hurt the chance of them being polite when in public as they'll feel like they are being punished for their choice of legal drug use. You cannot legislate politeness or kindness, it has to come from mutural respect.

Here you`d get a bottle in the neck for your trouble so I`m glad they`ve been forced outside.

afljafa
June 27th, 2007, 09:30 AM
I do believe some form of bans on smoking is okay, but it needs to be done so fairly. I've read post about your rights as a non-smoker, but what I hate is the fact that you are robbing us of our rights. Who the hell are you to tell me where and when to smoke. I don't tell people they have to smoke. I don't mind not being able to smoke in non-smoking areas. I respect non-smokers, yet they are the ones with the least respect.


Respect - we shouldn`t have to "respect" anyone for poisoning us. Go stand in a field and smoke.

tehhaxorr
June 27th, 2007, 10:04 AM
I live in New Zealand, We've already done this, about 2 years ago. At first there was a bit of a stink about it but everyone is used to it... No problem now.

tehhaxorr
June 27th, 2007, 10:06 AM
I think it's an infringement on peoples personal freedom to smoke. Here smokers are generally polite enough to ask if you mind them smoking so not to bother anyone unless you're in a bar where it is expected that you don't mind and honestly if you do.. tell the barkeeper, if he gets many complaints he'll ban smoking or create a seperate smoke free environment as it makes good business sense.

By waging a war on smokers I think we only hurt the chance of them being polite when in public as they'll feel like they are being punished for their choice of legal drug use. You cannot legislate politeness or kindness, it has to come from mutural respect.

But by smoking you are effecting peoples rights not to.. sorta a double edged sword. As far as i'm concerned a well defined and places smoking are should be sufficient...

graabein
June 27th, 2007, 10:30 AM
They banned smoking in pubs and bars in Norway a couple years ago. It took away some of the mystique. With one glance you can see the whole place, you don't need to walk through the room to see who's there.

I used to smoke and continued smoking some months after the ban. I was going to quit smoking anyhow and I finally did in October last year. I enjoyed smoking and still miss it sometimes but I'm glad I quit. You save a lot of money and it's healthier. With the smoke ban your clothes and hair don't smell like hell the day after going out.

cjssmo
June 27th, 2007, 11:21 AM
Well if we are going to ban everything that affects your health let's get rid of the booze also. I mean how many people get killed every year due to alcohol, but it's not being banned. Hey let's take a look at all the preservatives in foods now a days and how about banning cars they put out a s**t load of pollution into the air which affects your health have you seen the haze over LA lately but there not being banned. And what about all the plastic in the computer you are using right now, do you realize how much pollution is created to make all the plastic in your computer but there not being banned. My point is the health issue thing is kind of lame.

So yea if you non-smoker want to ban something why not ban something that will do some good like all those coal fired power generating stations in china and the united states and maybe there will be a planet left for our kids. But oh yea I forgot we now live in the I, I, I, me, me, me, society now!

What really need to be banned is Paris Hilton

tehhaxorr
June 27th, 2007, 11:30 AM
Well if we are going to ban everything that affects your health let's get rid of the booze also. I mean how many people get killed every year due to alcohol, but it's not being banned. Hey let's take a look at all the preservatives in foods now a days and how about banning cars they put out a s**t load of pollution into the air which affects your health have you seen the haze over LA lately but there not being banned. And what about all the plastic in the computer you are using right now, do you realize how much pollution is created to make all the plastic in your computer but there not being banned. My point is the health issue thing is kind of lame.

So yea if you non-smoker want to ban something why not ban something that will do some good like all those coal fired power generating stations in china and the united states and maybe there will be a planet left for our kids. But oh yea I forgot we now live in the I, I, I, me, me, me, society now!

What really need to be banned is Paris Hilton

The real issue is not banning smoking but giving non smokers the right not to be effected by smokers, just like you can drive a car but you can't legally drive it into anyone else, you can drink but you can't go pouring alcohol on someone else without them asking. People choose to buy food with preservatives and the issue of dangerous fumes in the air is something that is being addressed to lessen the effects.

The whole issue of making smokers sit outside is simply to ensure that the non smokers aren't subjected to something that they don't want, maybe a smokers room would be a more sensible alternative but you have to admit that for a non smoker, second hand smoke can be a problem.

I'm a smoker personally and while i think banning smoking in any indoor public arena is a little over the top, i don't think it is too unreasonable and unjustified. If someone wants a smoke they just stand outside for a few mins, if someone doesn't want to be in a room of smokers they have to stand outside all night. Small compromise that might not be entirely fair, but it is the most effective solution of the two.

graabein
June 27th, 2007, 01:00 PM
Well said tehhaxorr!

Circus-Killer
June 27th, 2007, 01:11 PM
But by smoking you are effecting peoples rights not to.. sorta a double edged sword. As far as i'm concerned a well defined and places smoking are should be sufficient...

in what way does somebody smoking outside infringe on your rights not to smoke? nobody sais you have to stand right on top of me. and at three-steps away you wont be catching ANY secondary smoke. do you honestly that a smoker on the street is more harmful to you than factories, power stations, cars, busses, etc. etc. how about we just force people back to pen and paper so that i can have the right to live in a world with forrests. how about we shutdown every single power station in the world so i can have the right to fresh air.

all im saying is, use your brains. you wanna moan about your health, then do something constructive. as i said, a smoker outside is so much less harmful than anything else out there. honestly, i think all non-smokers need to take their heads out there behinds and start to use their brains. how about we tackle all the other polluters, before tackling smokers.

as said in previous post, the other day i was having a cig, and a bus came past, clogging the street up in thick black smoke. yet people complain about my cigerette. clearly being a non-smoker affects intellegence in a negative way. its so painfully obvious how stupid you people are being. i mean, as said, i agree with no smoking in confined public places, such as a restaurant or whatever. but to take the law out onto the street is stupid. cos the pollution of a cigarette does not match up to even 1% of the world pollution. im sorry for repeating the same point so many times, but clearly non smokers need the extra time for their brains to click in.

notwen
June 27th, 2007, 02:12 PM
That is in effect for the majority of the states, but in my opinion each venue/bar/restaurant should be able to decide whether they want to allow smoking or not, then let it's patrons decide if they want to participate in any activity at a smoking/non-smoking location. I myself do not smoke and do not mind being around others that smoke, to each his/her own.

Patrick-Ruff
June 27th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Personally I think they should just ban the sale of cigarettes outright instead of all these stupid laws.

It's partially implemented over here, pubs/restaurants have designated smoking areas but we are heading for a similair situation with an outright ban in public places. Also read something about banning smoking in cars if there are kids in the car. With that reasoning they will probably ban you smoking in your own house as well if there are kids present.

the banning of any addictive substances causes more problems than it solves . . .

as far as this situation goes, I think there should be some that have the option to allow smokers. I mean, based on every smoker I know it's not as easy as "oh I'm just gonna quit today." it seems like it modifies your entire mental structure. your day is based around when you can get your next cigarette, etc. I'm sure you all know this is true to some extent.

anyways, that's what I think about that.

DoctorMO
June 27th, 2007, 02:25 PM
I think it's shocking that there are people here creating excuses, damned excuses for the immoral behaviour of smoking. I don't look too kindly on drivers, factory owners (powerplants produce water vapour and release it high in the atmosphere) the fact is that in London 18% of all pollutants come from peoples smoke, 34% from cars and buses I'd personally ban them both but I'll settle for banning smoking since at least cars have "some" if marginal benefit.

Now pardon me for breathing but despite the problems of the world, no person should have the right to excuse their personal immoral behaviour of harming others near them for no good reason (smoking has NO good reason) and no, because you enjoy it is NOT good enough; there are sadists out there that would love and enjoy harming other people and could rightly argue that we should have consistent laws with regards to harming others for someone else's enjoyment. So rather than trying to push the smoking problem to one side with weightier problems, take responsibility for the harm your causing to others and yourself.

moljac024
June 27th, 2007, 03:19 PM
Smoking bans in enclosed and public spaces are a necessity, and i'm glad to see the world shifting in this direction.

Smoking in the same room as non smokers is not a matter of choice but convenience for the smoker ( they would rather harm other people's health by smoking at the table than step outside and isolate others from the poison they choose to harm themselves with - so non-smokers should suffer because the smokers are lazy to step outside ? ). That, my friends is selfish. Should I be forced to step outside because YOU want to smoke?

Would it be ok if i were to force YOU out of the room because I want to swing my sword around ?

Stupid example but think about it - me swinging a sword poses a smaller threat to me because i'm isolated from the blade but you are not , as does the filter in the cigarette pose smaller threat to you since you are isolated (to some extent) to the poison and i am not...

ice60
June 27th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Now pardon me for breathinghave you tried holding your breath?

i like smoking and don't care one bit what non-smokers think, actually the more upset they get the better ;)

ice60
June 27th, 2007, 10:09 PM
have you seen how many smoking fetish sites there are? it seems millions find it very sexy! lol