Vote on smoking ban in public places

Richdog · 16 Feb 2006 at 14:38

VIRII said:
When did you quit ?

At 25 years old, last year.

Clearcut · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:00

Sorry, I have no sympathy for smokers as many are very selfish.
In the morning I stand in the bus stop with my little daughter, trying to shield her from the elements, when some selfish little ...... will light up a cigarette and smoke us all out into the rain.
I smoked for 20 years until 3 years ago and would always be the one to stand in the rain if I was smoking.
It makes my blood boil! Then, despite the buses being NON SMOKING, the smell of smoke always drifts down the stairs & the drivers are too scared to do anything.

james.miller · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:03

Clearcut said:
Sorry, I have no sympathy for smokers as many are very selfish.
In the morning I stand in the bus stop with my little daughter, trying to shield her from the elements, when some selfish little ...... will light up a cigarette and smoke us all out into the rain.
I smoked for 20 years until 3 years ago and would always be the one to stand in the rain if I was smoking.
It makes my blood boil! Then, despite the buses being NON SMOKING, the smell of smoke always drifts down the stairs & the drivers are too scared to do anything.

im sorry mate but that's idiot teenagers being selfish. that's NOTHING to do with smokers in general.

The_TailGunner · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:20

GordyR said:
I understand your point mate but I disagree. Alcohol can and does have terrible effects on people other than the 'drinker'. How many assaults take place due to people consuming too much alcohol? How many fathers get drunk and beat their children? How many innocent bystanders are killed by drunk drivers? I could go on and on...

The victims of these crimes were forced to suffer because of another persons habit. I really don't see that much difference at all. Maybe my viewpoint is biased since I have been a victim of another persons alcoholism, my fathers. I would give anything to have had my father constantly blow smoke in to my face if it meant he hadn't been an alcoholic throughout my childhood. Whatever small amount of damage my lungs would have taken would have been far less than the damage his drinking did to me.

in the case of alcoholism, i agree (my old man is an alcoholic)...but i assume they are talking about drinking as a social thing- being a "normal" drinker is far less harmful than being a "normal" smoker...if that makes sense?

TG

dirtydog · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:22

You can get selfish smokers of any age and in my experience a lot are selfish, and take a 'if you don't like it, tough' attitude which stinks as much as the cigarettes they are addicted to.

Clearcut · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:23

james.miller said:
im sorry mate but that's idiot teenagers being selfish. that's NOTHING to do with smokers in general.

Agreed James, perhaps I should have said I have no sympathy with 'many' smokers.

james.miller · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:27

GordyR said:
I am disgusted by the ban personally. Purely because I am opposed to anything that removes our freedom of choice. This is coming from a non-smoker.

Still... I think it will be extremely interesting to see peoples reactions when the media moves on from "cigarette bashing" to something else that they enjoy. It will happen.

Anyway, I also find it incredibly hypocritical that the government has tightened smoking laws while at the same time relaxed drinking laws. I will always view alcohol as an infinately more harmful substance than tobacco. And I don't mean just to those who choose to consume it. Some of you may use the argument "Oh but drinking doesn't effect those around you". Really? Try living with an alcoholic father.

Cigarettes don't induce violent behaviour, alcohol does. Why encourage one while condemning the other?

I like to call it....social acceptability. As long as society deems it acceptable, it will be. despite what drink can do and despite what its linked to

Nitefly · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:29

Out of curiosity, if the original law always had been smoking is not allowed in pubs and clubs (public places), and then suddenly they were allowed to, what would you say?

james.miller · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:32

I guess it depends on what your used to. i would say no, go smoke outside, but then that's my view anyway. I am an 'occasional' smoker, but i have no problem with putting other peoples conciderations first. I'm all for banning it in pubs clubs and any other buildings. Makes them nicer places to be

FincH · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:32

Smoking ban in public places = Good.
24 Hour drinking law = Stupid.

GordyR · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:35

WS_TailGunner said:
in the case of alcoholics and so on, i agree (my old man is an alcoholic)...but i assume they are talking about drinking as a social thing- being a "normal" drinker is far less harmful than being a "normal" smoker...if that makes sense?

TG

Indeed, I understand that point of view completely. But then it could be argued that even "normal" drinkers have killed people through drink driving or have comitted assaults which would not have happened were they not under the influence etc. Not only alcoholics commit these offences. But to be honest thats besides the point.

From my point of view, a group of completely plastered lads, falling all over the place, acting threateningly, starting fights etc. would ruin my 'pub-going' experience far more than having to put up with the smell of smoke. Go in to any pub on Friday/Saturday night and you are bound to see the behaviour I have described from multiple groups of young men.

I am not against alcohol nor am I pro-smoking, I just find the way the government have relaxed the laws on one poison while tightening the laws on another to be hypocritical.

GordyR · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:38

james.miller said:
I like to call it....social acceptability. As long as society deems it acceptable, it will be. despite what drink can do and despite what its linked to

Exactly mate. Thats what it comes down to, social acceptability. It just annoys me a little when most of the reasons people give for being "pro" the ban are just as applicable to many things which they do themselves.

james.miller · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:39

It is. Totally hypocritical. But it's in the publics interest. I said from the start that it seems to me they haven't thought it through at all. Rather they are only concerned with rallying public support.

GordyR · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:41

james.miller said:
I said from the start that it seems to me they haven't thought it through at all. Rather they are only concerned with rallying public support.

Absolutely, I agree with that 100%. I just wonder what the next target will be?

The_TailGunner · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:46

GordyR said:
Indeed, I understand that point of view completely. But then it could be argued that even "normal" drinkers have killed people through drink driving or have comitted assaults which would not have happened were they not under the influence etc. Not only alcoholics commit these offences. But to be honest thats besides the point.

From my point of view, a group of completely plastered lads, falling all over the place, acting threateningly, starting fights etc. would ruin my 'pub-going' experience far more having to put up with the smell of smoke. Go in to any pub on Friday/Saturday night and you are bound to see the behaviour I have described from multiple groups of young men.

Am I not against alcohol nor am I pro-smoking, I just find the way the government have relaxed the laws on one poison while tightening the laws on another to be hypocritical.

agree completely there gordy.

i suppose the only difference is that of social accpetability, and the UKs "lager lout" culture...."the majority" have decided that smoking in public places is bad, but that all the drinking related problems are ok.

however- im still in complete favour of the ban on smoking.

TG

Arcade Fire · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:48

VIRII said:
It is a total ban in pubs and clubs. A complete ban outlawing the sale of them would have made more sense to me.

Completely agree. This just seems arbitrary.

I admit that smokers in pubs annoy me, but hey, I do a lot of stuff that annoys other people and I certainly don't expect to be legislated against.

There should be a total ban, or else it should be up to the licensee to decide whether people can smoke in their establishent or not.

Nitefly · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:49

WS_TailGunner said:
i suppose the only difference is that of social accpetability, and the UKs "lager lout" culture...."the majority" have decided that smoking in public places is bad, but that all the drinking related problems are ok.

I think thats a little unfair. Both are problematic but the difference is one can be dealt with far easier. Also, don't forget that there is a law stating its illeagal to sell a drunk person alchohol.... Its not like the government do nothing.

VIRII · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:52

Richdog said:
At 25 years old, last year.

Do you think you'll stay quit? I'm on quit number 3, 14 months into it, quit number one lasted over 3 years, quit number 2 lasted a few weeks.

The_TailGunner · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:55

Nitefly said:
I think thats a little unfair. Both are problematic but the difference is one can be dealt with far easier. Also, don't forget that there is a law stating its illeagal to sell a drunk person alchohol.... Its not like the government do nothing.

ahh...but legally, the only person who can declare a person is a doctor.

learned that when i did my doorman's training.

ok, so it was a little unfair, but this country does have a major problem with what i will term "lager loutism"

TG

GordyR · 16 Feb 2006 at 16:58

Nitefly said:
I think thats a little unfair. Both are problematic but the difference is one can be dealt with far easier. Also, don't forget that there is a law stating its illeagal to sell a drunk person alchohol.... Its not like the government do nothing.

Unfortunately that law doesn't get enforced too often. It only really comes in to play when somone is so drunk that they cannot function at all. By which point they would be incapable of being a threat to anyone anyway.

You're correct in saying that smoking is dealt with more easily. I cannot argue with that. But why deal with one and at the same time encourage the other? Well we know why... Social acceptability.