Vote on smoking ban in public places

Bigstan said:
At last, the voice of reason.

It has taken 89 posts for someone to actually consider that both smokers and non-smokers can be catered for in a reasonable and practical manner.

I am sorely disappointed...actually, I'm disgusted by the number of selfish people in this thread who welcome a total ban on smoking as this suits their needs even though it inconveniences smokers greatly.

Did it never occur to you people that separate facilities could be provided for people who wish to smoke whilst they are having a drink which would allow them to do so without inconveniencing non-smokers.

This **** you Jack, I'm all right atitude sickens me.

The point Cleanbluesky has been trying to make is that if you people had been so bothered about smoking in public places in the past, why the hell didn't you try to do something about it?

If you had organised yourselves and spoken to local pub landlords etc, you could well have forced them to make changes to accomodate both parties. I can assure you that if a few hundred people had threatened to withhold their custom until something had been done, the response would have been prompt and positive.

Instead you "suffered" in silence, secretly (or openly) despising smokers for causing you a problem which you couldn't be arsed to do anything about and waited for the Government to do it for you.

Now, in typically heavyhanded fashion, they have and smokers have been greatly inconvenienced - but that doesn't matter because you got what you wanted so **** the smokers.

I hope you enjoy watching smugly from your seat in the warm pub as I stand outside in the sleet and snow trying to satisfy my adiction :mad:

Stan :)
Click to expand...

No offense as a smoker my preffered solution would have been that the industry take the lead on this issue 10 years ago and started to move some of there pubs to non-smoking. If there was a viable choice for non-smokers who dont want to be subjected to a smoky environment then the government probably wouldnt have had to get involved in the first place. The problem is after many years of the government trying to push the industry to regulate itself and offer a choice it hasnt happened for the most part. Most towns are lucky to have one non smoking pub.

The compromise suggested for pubs would not have worked IMO. For pubs due to the industries reticence to sort this problem out themselves the government had to act.

Now private clubs I dont agree with whats happened. Its not like they are open to the general public as such and this will kill some clubs like Cigar smoking clubs, pipe clubs and the like. But it has happened as smokers are an easy group to target.
 
TBH Smokers choose to smoke. If they wish to smoke, they can go outside to do so instead of forcing me to inhale it. People who don't smoke shouldn't be the ones who are forced to have to go elsewhere because some inconsiderate 'tard thinks he has the right to liberate others with a truely disgusting habit.

It irritates me so much when people decide to smoke in a resteraunt when i'm eating. It puts you off your food.

and before some smarty pants says "sit in non-smoking" - I do. Smoke drifts you know.
 
punky_munky said:
Because 30 people die every day from passive smoking?
Click to expand...

I saw a very interesting question posed about this very issue yesterday. Where are these thirty people who die everyday from passive smoking and where does it say on the cause of death "Death was caused by passive smoking?"

I am not denying that the figures might be accurate but after having worked statstics for a while I know how easily they can be manipulated to show exactly what you want them to show.
 
It's a disgusting habit. It should have been weened out through the generations years ago once it was learned that it was detrimental to health. I hate seeing fag ends everywhere and i'm sure the air would be at least marginally cleaner without all the smokers.

The money saved from not smoking will still go into the economy in the end, so your argument there is flawed.
 
Brilliant news.

I see the usual 'if you don't like smoke, stay out of pubs' argument has returned. It really makes me lol. How the tables have turned. :D
 
Nix said:
1. If they wish to smoke, they can go outside to do so instead of forcing me to inhale it.

2. People who don't smoke shouldn't be the ones who are forced to have to go elsewhere because some inconsiderate 'tard thinks he has the right to liberate others with a truely disgusting habit.

3. It irritates me so much when people decide to smoke in a resteraunt when i'm eating. It puts you off your food.
Click to expand...

1. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want to inhale cigarette smoke, don't put yourself into situations where smoking is likely.

2. I presume the term "inconsiderate 'tard" is used to describe smokers. I take great offence at this. I am not inconsiderate and I am most certainly not retarded. I only smoke in places where smoking is permitted and even then, if it is brought to my attention that my smoke is causing inconvenience, I will attempt to do something about it. Please don't make generalisations - especially not offensive ones like this.

3. Me too.

Stan :)
 
Fair enough Stan, i'm not generalising - but it's from my experience that this is how it is. As for 1 - that is exactly the smokers argument. No, you choose to smoke, therefore you should be the one inconvenienced when you need to light up, not those who don't.
 
I am ecstatic, I work in a club behind the bar and it really REALLY annoys me, I am really looking forward to being able to go out and come back NOT smelling of smoke.

Superb!
 
FordPrefect said:
Where are these thirty people who die everyday from passive smoking?"
Click to expand...

Certainly not filling in questionnaires about it, because, yep, you guessed it... they're dead.

Bigstan said:
1. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you don't want to inhale cigarette smoke, don't put yourself into situations where smoking is likely.
Click to expand...

So it's okay for you to go out drinking, but not me, because you're selfish enough to be willing to harm others?

Malt_Vinegar said:
If it means beer without smoke in my lungs - Im all for it.
Click to expand...

As opposed to just beer in your lungs? :p
 
My two main points in this and the many other previous threads in SC on the same subject have been:

1. An outright ban is unnecessary and ill thought out. A compromise could easily have been reached which would have suited all concerned.

2. The vast majority of smokers would have been happy to support legislation if a compromise had been reached. The main reason that this has not happened is because the non-smoking lobby have insisted on an outright ban from the onset and because they hold the majority, that is what will happen. If the non-smokers had been less selfish and been prepared to reach a compromise then everybody could have been accomodated and there would have been much less ill-feeling.

I have yet to hear any argument which alters the above facts so I will continue to argue that this legislation is unnecessary and Draconian and that the majority of the participants in these debates who assume a selfish, uncompromising attitude are non-smokers.

Stan :)
 
NokkonWud said:
So it's okay for you to go out drinking, but not me, because you're selfish enough to be willing to harm others?
Click to expand...

I have no wish to harm anyone. I am merely exercising my right to participate in a legal activity in premises where it is permitted to do so.
If smoking in pubs was preventing you from enjoying your night out, why did you not actively try to do something about it?

I will be lobbying my MP (and others) to have this legislation reconsidered in the hope of reaching a compromise so that we can both enjoy our night out - would that not be less selfish than applauding legislation which allows only one of us to enjoy a visit to the pub?

Stan :)
 
Bigstan said:
I have no wish to harm anyone. I am merely exercising my right to participate in a legal activity in premises where it is permitted to do so.
If smoking in pubs was preventing you from enjoying your night out, why did you not actively try to do something about it?
Click to expand...

I think us non-smokers did do something about it?
We weren't being selfish, we'd put up with something that knowingly harmed us for long enough.
 
Im glad to see this taking place but I can't believe some of the posts in this thread attempting to justify things.

My father is a smoker and always will be, this wont make him quit smoking. My mother MADE him use the utility room to smoke in (aka being away from the family) which has a vent to the garden so the smell and fumes dont linger. This was done when my dads routine chest scan found nodes in his lungs from his "habbit". The FACT is if you want to literally kill/main YOURSELF, by all means feel free, I wont cry at your funeral. When you disregard other peoples rights to being healthy then its another matter entirely.

Im deadly serious with this post as well. Im tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions. If my father refused to stop smoking around me and I got health problems due to it id literally have him done for attempted murder. You may think im over reacting but thats how I see things and I will stick by my beliefs.

End of rant :)
 
Well lets see, lets stop everyone from smoking, that way the government will need to increase the tax, makes drinks even more expensive, more gatsos in the streets, but hey, at least you have a lesser chance of dying from second hand smoking.
 
pyro said:
Well lets see, lets stop everyone from smoking, that way the government will need to increase the tax, makes drinks even more expensive, more gatsos in the streets, but hey, at least you have a lesser chance of dying from second hand smoking.
Click to expand...

I'd rather pay more tax and increase my quality of life and chances of living longer. There will also be savings to the NHS from less smoking-related illnesses, not to mention people working and paying taxes who would have otherwise died from smoking directly or indirectly.
 
Stringy said:
And the government has the right to make things legal or illegal (no matter what class of property you're on) making that a bit of a moot point :p

Sorry, just felt like pointing that out

If you don't like it start a petition, run for government, phone your MP. It's how democracy works unfortunately. Similarly if you don't agree with the hypocrisy regarding the stance on other legal drugs, or muslims with placards, or the war, or whatever, do the same thing. (kind of rendering Speakers Corner redundant in one fell swoop).
Click to expand...

Please see the above posts about having good justification to ban something.

Surely you'd agree with that? Justification other than 'my clothes small after a night out' is required before anything is banned?

The government doesn't have the right to ban anything, they have to ability to ban things that they see necessary. I'd like to see the conclusive proof on passive smoking that provoked this, we know more about certain rare flowers in the amazon than we do about passive smoking.

You arguement boils down to 'the government has the right to ban anything and if you don't like it write to your MP'. We're having a discussion, if your idea of a discussion is for example at a dinner party to stop everyone mid sentence and say 'Well if you don't like it you should complain to your MP' then please step aside while we discuss the reasons why we should complain to our MP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom