smoking ban

this week my country did a very clever thing. it banned smoking in all enclosed public spaces. that is pubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas, shopping centres, theatres. the whole thing. anything with four walls which the public can get in from next march will be a no smoking area. and those smoking or those in charge of such a place where smoking is happening can be fined.

this is all to stop passive smoking. and really to stop people coming out of bars smelling of smoke and having to smell it all the time.

this to be is a good thing. and england don't have it yet (devolution is omni-good).

so what do other people think is this a good thing?

i'm a smoker myself and i think its a good thing least this way i won't be feeling guilty about smoking in front of kids or have to put up with ppl looking at me like i was killing em

Yay for it! I get so tired of feeling like I have to hide in my house to keep from having to smell smoke because it's someone's "right" to do it. Smoking in public is very inconsiderate in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liamo

i'm a smoker myself and i think its a good thing least this way i won't be feeling guilty about smoking in front of kids or have to put up with ppl looking at me like i was killing em

---

Well, you could just smoke elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

this week my country did a very clever thing. it banned smoking in all enclosed public spaces. that is pubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas, shopping centres, theatres. the whole thing. anything with four walls which the public can get in from next march will be a no smoking area. and those smoking or those in charge of such a place where smoking is happening can be fined.

---

A lot of restaurants, shopping centres and cinemas already forbid smoking, as it is. Pubs and restaurants, will at least have a non-smoking area if it is allowed.

And yes, it is a good thing as passive smoking isn't lovely.

I wish they would do that in the US.

In my area, this ban will seriously be helpful. I wish they had it here, but nooo, they don't.

That sounds like a good idea, and while the US hasn't taken such strong measures all at once, it has been moving in that direction, though I think it's at the discretion of individual states. I know in CT, where I live, there's also a smoking ban in all public buildings. That said, enforcement is pretty lax, and authorities seem to look the other way.

It's a good idea, definitely, although I'm not sure if the motivation behind it is quite right. Nowadays smokers are made to feel like social outcasts, almost as if the habit were a criminal offence. It seems as if these new laws are being introduced based upon that mentality. It's not that banning smoking in public areas is a bad idea, just that the attitude behind it isn't what it should be.

Bah, while I see the reasoning behind it.. I'm a really lazy bugger that now has to walk outside to smoke, as this has been enforced in Florida for some time. Bastards making me have to use more energy.

And yeah, yeah.. I know.. Second-hand smoke and all that. I just like to bitch. xDD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

I wish they would do that in the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necronopticous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

I wish they would do that in the US.

---

---

They have in some states.

a good thing
nothing more to say

I feel this is a step in the right direction, though there is one thing about this smoking malarky that concerns me. The fact that there are a lot of parents out there that regularly smoke in front of their children, not in public places, but in the home. Both my parents have exposed me to this from an early age, and I've always hated it. Doesn't stop them smoking in the living room, the kitchen, and in most rooms in the house apart from my bedroom.

Should this not be considered as a form of child abuse and thus be outlawed, considering the damage this causes to a child's lungs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Yay for it! I get so tired of feeling like I have to hide in my house to keep from having to smell smoke because it's someone's "right" to do it. Smoking in public is very inconsiderate in the first place!

---

Killing people, even involuntarily, shouldn't be a right.

that's sorta similar to, what is it, manslaughter?

It sucks. I mean, take it out from everywhere, but respect the bars and pubs, damn it. No smoking there...it just takes away all the atmosphere, a bar without smoke is like a clinic were drinks are sold or something. Bars and pubs NEED smoke.

Good thing? That's an EXCELLENT thing! They should even ban smoking in open-air spaces!

I could personally care less whether they ban smoking in public or not, but the smokers have just as much right to that air space as you. Smoking has never bothered me since my friends started smoking.

But some people seem to think smokers are bad people just because they smoke. If you got the problem, go somewhere else

There should be no smoking ban anywhere, period. (With the obvios exception of places like hospitals, etc.) The smoker has the right to smoke where he pleases, and anyone who doesn't like it can either A) Deal with it or B) Go somewhere else. It's ridiculous to think that our country has become so oppresive that we think it is okay to prevent people from smoking in certain places.

I am glad for you, they already passed it in Legislation in New Brunswick banning smoking in public places. I can see why, like said by other members, by smoking in public you are slowly killing the people around you, and endangering their lives. I am sorry if that is what they believe is a "right" they have, but seriously, smoking has no positive effects that I know of. The stuff in cigarrettes is scary, like there is arsnic in cigarrettes, the same stuff you kill rats with. If someone wants to slowly commit suicide then go for it, but do not bring me along for the ride.

Fact: One cigarette takes roughly seven minutes from your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

There should be no smoking ban anywhere, period. (With the obvios exception of places like hospitals, etc.) The smoker has the right to smoke where he pleases, and anyone who doesn't like it can either A) Deal with it or B) Go somewhere else. It's ridiculous to think that our country has become so oppresive that we think it is okay to prevent people from smoking in certain places.

---

True we have no right to tell someone not to smoke.I dont like smokers but i think they should smoke if they want too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

There should be no smoking ban anywhere, period. (With the obvios exception of places like hospitals, etc.) The smoker has the right to smoke where he pleases, and anyone who doesn't like it can either A) Deal with it or B) Go somewhere else. It's ridiculous to think that our country has become so oppresive that we think it is okay to prevent people from smoking in certain places.

---

People can smoke if they choose. However, they shouldn't be able to do it in public. They are endangering other people. You're telling me that a room full of non-smokers should leave because the ONE smoker is ruining the air? They may own the right to smoke if they want to, but they don't own the air surrounding them. One shouldn't ruin it for the rest. Besides, they can have fun smoking in their own homes.

One has the right to smoke if they wish, but when they infringe on someone else's health as well, it becomes a problem. Yes, correct. It is everyone's air. But by that logic, if I enjoyed inhaling highly toxic gas far more damaging than cigarette smoke; why wouldn't I be able to do so in a room full of people? It is everyones air, after all.

Would this not be an infringment of civil liberty? If so, why then, if it was cigarrette smoke, would it not be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

this week my country did a very clever thing. it banned smoking in all enclosed public spaces. that is pubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas, shopping centres, theatres. the whole thing. anything with four walls which the public can get in from next march will be a no smoking area. and those smoking or those in charge of such a place where smoking is happening can be fined.

this is all to stop passive smoking. and really to stop people coming out of bars smelling of smoke and having to smell it all the time.

this to be is a good thing. and england don't have it yet (devolution is omni-good).

so what do other people think is this a good thing?

---

In the US most of the states have already enacted laws banning smoking inside enclosed areas and if there are smoking that each side of the building have different ventalation.So pretty much no business would go through with it so they just say no smoking.

It is a good thing because second hand smoke is horrible.People still get the effects from second hand.ITs a good thing smokers need to smoke outside and if they think thats an inconvience they should just stop smoking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

There should be no smoking ban anywhere, period. (With the obvios exception of places like hospitals, etc.) The smoker has the right to smoke where he pleases, and anyone who doesn't like it can either A) Deal with it or B) Go somewhere else. It's ridiculous to think that our country has become so oppresive that we think it is okay to prevent people from smoking in certain places.

---

Why should creating rules to ensure the health and safety of the people be considered oppression? You are granted lesser rights if you are in a relationship of the "wrong" kind and you do not have the right to abort a fetus, which will possibly ruin your life, yet you're obsessed with your right to perform idiocy, such as exposing other people to toxic gasses. I just don't understand this "I have the right to stand in the middle of the city shooting in every direction, so I will. If you dislike being shot just go elsewhere." reasoning.

Quote:

---

Why should creating rules to ensure the health and safety of the people be considered oppression?

---

Because it prevents people from doing what they wish.

Quote:

---

You are granted lesser rights if you are in a relationship of the "wrong" kind and you do not have the right to abort a fetus, which will possibly ruin your life, yet you're obsessed with your right to perform idiocy, such as exposing other people to toxic gasses.

---

What the hell? This makes absolutely no sense. Since when do we not have the rights to abort a fetus? And moreso, how does lack of abortion rights relate to smoking in public?

Quote:

---

I just don't understand this "I have the right to stand in the middle of the city shooting in every direction, so I will. If you dislike being shot just go elsewhere." reasoning.

---

This doesn't deserve a comment. The difference between the two scenarios in question is blaringly obvious.

The bottom line here, is that second hand smoke does not harm you in any way, shape, or form. A smoker must smoke for years in order to do any noticeable amount of damage to his or her body. The amount of second hand smoke one will inahle in thier lifetime is minimal. You don't even get the entire cigarette, you get small portions of it. Do you really think that the small amount of smoke you inhale is really going to hurt you? Simple logic says it won't. The argument about how it "infringes upon my health" is complete bull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Because it prevents people from doing what they wish.

---

Is that not the purpose of all laws? Do you suggest abolishing all laws preventing people from doing what they wish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

What the hell? This makes absolutely no sense. Since when do we not have the rights to abort a fetus? And moreso, how does lack of abortion rights relate to smoking in public?

---

What about the case a couple of months ago where a 13 year old girl was denied the right to an abortion? I just picked it as an example. What I'm trying to say is that there are several rights you don't have, and still the ones you're complaining about losing are the ones that prevent you from harming other people and you don't need in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

The bottom line here, is that second hand smoke does not harm you in any way, shape, or form. A smoker must smoke for years in order to do any noticeable amount of damage to his or her body. The amount of second hand smoke one will inahle in thier lifetime is minimal. You don't even get the entire cigarette, you get small portions of it. Do you really think that the small amount of smoke you inhale is really going to hurt you? Simple logic says it won't. The argument about how it "infringes upon my health" is complete bull.

---

It is toxic gas. It might not initially kill you, but you can't deny that it affects your health negatively.

i agree with nikotine. im sorry but we dont tell people they cant drink in pubs, its just stupid!
I'm a smoker which might make me a little biased. yes its a terrible habit and should definately not be done around children, im always tryin to be considerate especially around little ones.
But we have the right to do what we want! I don't go round telling heavy drinkers that they're killing their livers, or telling fast food junkies that they're going to have a heart attack by the time theyre 30!
I think more focus should be put on binge drinking and underage binge drinking, and drugs - particularly in europe where its a hell of a bigger threat!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkItachi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

There should be no smoking ban anywhere, period. (With the obvios exception of places like hospitals, etc.) The smoker has the right to smoke where he pleases, and anyone who doesn't like it can either A) Deal with it or B) Go somewhere else. It's ridiculous to think that our country has become so oppresive that we think it is okay to prevent people from smoking in certain places.

---

True we have no right to tell someone not to smoke.I dont like smokers but i think they should smoke if they want too.

---

but if your a business owner pretty much you can tell the smokers to light up outside lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

It sucks. I mean, take it out from everywhere, but respect the bars and pubs, damn it. No smoking there...it just takes away all the atmosphere, a bar without smoke is like a clinic were drinks are sold or something. Bars and pubs NEED smoke.

---

Definitely NOT. I hate getting all cleaned up, going out to a bar and come home smelling like an ash tray. It's f#ckin' disgusting. Not to mention how bad second hand smoke is for you, especially in a little hotboxed pub. Even if you go to a big pool hall, and play in the non-smoking section, you still smell like it. I can finally go out to a bar, and not have to worry about getting lung cancer, even though I don't smoke.

Anyways, they just passed the same legislation here too. Smoking hasn't been allowed in public places here for years now, but they finally eradicated it from bars and pubs this past weekend (July 1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

There should be no smoking ban anywhere, period. (With the obvios exception of places like hospitals, etc.) The smoker has the right to smoke where he pleases, and anyone who doesn't like it can either A) Deal with it or B) Go somewhere else. It's ridiculous to think that our country has become so oppresive that we think it is okay to prevent people from smoking in certain places.

---

WTF?? What gives a smoker the right to pollute MY air. Smokers will eventually become a minority, and it is smokers who should therefore go someplace else, i.e. outdoors, or go stink up their own home. To have it any other way is just ridiculous.

Yes it is okay to prevent people from smoking in certain places. Its harmful to those around them.

No offence meant to those smokers here. I'm just being logical.

this is bull. the government think they are smurfing god. the people who own the bar/cinima or whatever should be the ONLY ones who should decide whether or not their place is a smoking or non smoking place. im not aloud to hold a can of lager when im walking down the street and now i cant spark up a fag when i go to the pub? (i know this isnt in affect in england just yet but they are getting it done)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shinangel2292

this is bull. the government think they are smurfing god. the people who own the bar/cinima or whatever should be the ONLY ones who should decide whether or not their place is a smoking or non smoking place. im not aloud to hold a can of lager when im walking down the street and now i cant spark up a fag when i go to the pub? (i know this isnt in affect in england just yet but they are getting it done)

---

well put!

what happened to the good old 'smoking and non smoking' sections in bars eh? i thought it worked pretty well

as for smelling like an ash tray after a night out.. well you also smell of beer so no matter if you did ban smoking in pubs you'd still come out stinking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

what happened to the good old 'smoking and non smoking' sections in bars eh? i thought it worked pretty well

---

Breaking it up to smoking and non-smoking sections is useless. Like I said, even if you go to a huge pool hall, hang out in the non-smoking section all night, you still reak of smoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

as for smelling like an ash tray after a night out.. well you also smell of beer so no matter if you did ban smoking in pubs you'd still come out stinking!

---

Haha.....true, if you're getting sloshed to the point in which you spill beer all over yourself.....which I have done in the past. Big difference in smelling like smoke though.

But the disgusting smell isn't the real issue here. Robbing people of fresh, smoke-free air in a small place like a pub is. It'll be great to be able to go for a beer, or a night out, and not be irritated by cigarette smoke.

this is discrimination against people who smoke. there should be bars for smokers and bars for non smokers. banning smoking altogether is a blatent act of discrimination

Quote:

---

Is that not the purpose of all laws? Do you suggest abolishing all laws preventing people from doing what they wish?

---

A good portion of laws should be abolished.

Quote:

---

What about the case a couple of months ago where a 13 year old girl was denied the right to an abortion? I just picked it as an example. What I'm trying to say is that there are several rights you don't have, and still the ones you're complaining about losing are the ones that prevent you from harming other people and you don't need in any way.

---

I complain about losing any right.

Quote:

---

It is toxic gas. It might not initially kill you, but you can't deny that it affects your health negatively.

---

Small amounts of toxins aren't going to hurt anybody. It is toxic, yes, but I am arguing that a non smoker cannot possibly inhale enough second hand smoke to hurt them. Think about it. A smoker will smoke for years upon years, before they are hurt from smoking (if at all). How much smoke do they inhale? Well, it;s a hell of a lot of smoke, I'll tell you that.

The non smoker, however, only inhales second hand smoke. First of all, the smoker inahles all of the smoke from the cigarette, whereas the non smoker inhales only a small portion. The smoker will smoke at times when the non smoker will not have the chance to inhale second hand smoke.

Given this logic, how can you come to the conclusion that second hand smoke is actually harmful?

Quote:

---

but if your a business owner pretty much you can tell the smokers to light up outside lol.

---

Exactly. A business owner is free to do what he likes, but it isn't the governments place to stop us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shinangel2292

Quote:

---

The non smoker, however, only inhales second hand smoke. First of all, the smoker inahles all of the smoke from the cigarette, whereas the non smoker inhales only a small portion. The smoker will smoke at times when the non smoker will not have the chance to inhale second hand smoke.

Given this logic, how can you come to the conclusion that second hand smoke is actually harmful?

---

actually a smoker is breathing the smoke through a filter and the passive smoker is breathing it in pure. so yes a passive smoker still wouldnt breathe in enough to hurt them, but they are actually breathing in more than the smoker

---

the focus should be on stopping people from starting the habit in the first place, not deterring them from doing it after they're already addicted. biological studies have shown that even after a regular smoker quits they are still at risk from contracting lung diseases (incl cancer) later in life.
we are robbing nobody of fresh air! there are fans in the pubs round town and noone complains about the smell of smoke, they still go out and have a good time. its their choice to go into smokers bars they weren't forced to do it!

Plus our country can't afford to ban smoking because of the amount of tax the government makes off imported cigarettes.
In theory I've already paid for my future healthcare with all the tax money thats gone to the NHS!!!

Quote:

---

actually a smoker is breathing the smoke through a filter and the passive smoker is breathing it in pure. so yes a passive smoker still wouldnt breathe in enough to hurt them, they are actually brathing in more than the smoker

---

I'm not sure what you mean here. The 'passive smoker' is the one inhaling the second hand smoke? (Forgive me, I've never heard the term 'passive smoker' used before)
However, you make two seemingly contradictory points here (underscore the seemingly) The passive smoker isn't breathing in enough smoke to hurt them... but they are breathing in more than the smoker? So, if that is the case, if the smoker breathes in less, how is it that the smoke can hurt him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

the focus should be on stopping people from starting the habit in the first place, not deterring them from doing it after they're already addicted. biological studies have shown that even after a regular smoker quits they are still at risk from contracting lung diseases (incl cancer) later in life.
we are robbing nobody of fresh air! there are fans in the pubs round town and noone complains about the smell of smoke, they still go out and have a good time. its their choice to go into smokers bars they weren't forced to do it!

Plus our country can't afford to ban smoking because of the amount of tax the government makes off imported cigarettes.
In theory I've already paid for my future healthcare with all the tax money thats gone to the NHS!!!

---

dude thats right :eek: soon they are on about not treating diseases caused by smoking, but of course thats where alot of their funds come from. wtf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

actually a smoker is breathing the smoke through a filter and the passive smoker is breathing it in pure. so yes a passive smoker still wouldnt breathe in enough to hurt them, they are actually brathing in more than the smoker

---

I'm not sure what you mean here. The 'passive smoker' is the one inhaling the second hand smoke? (Forgive me, I've never heard the term 'passive smoker' used before)
However, you make two seemingly contradictory points here (underscore the seemingly) The passive smoker isn't breathing in enough smoke to hurt them... but they are breathing in more than the smoker? So, if that is the case, if the smoker breathes in less, how is it that the smoke can hurt him?

---

i mean to say that a passive smoker only breathes in smoke when they are in say a pub, but the smoker breathes it in through 20 up to 40 fags a day. so the passive smoker is breathing in the dangerous fumes which havnt been filtered, but not possibley enough from their trip to the pub to be dangerous

I think the anti smoking campaigns have pretty much eliminated smoking for my generation. Yeah, there are alot of people who smoke, but I think the number of long time smokers in my generation will be significantly lower than all of the generations before me.

Quote:

---

i mean to say that a passive smoker only breathes in smoke when they are in say a pub, but the smoker breathes it in through 20 up to 40 fags a day. so the passive smoker is breathing in the dangerous fumes which havnt been filtered, but not possibley enough from their trip to the pub to be dangerous

---

I see.. This is pretty much my point.
However, I always thought that the filter was somehow worse than breathing in the smoke pure. I don't know where I got that idea from...

Quote:

---

dude thats right :eek: soon they are on about not treating diseases caused by smoking, but of course thats where alot of their funds come from. wtf

---

i wasnt on about them treating the diseases, I'm talking about the reasons they're banning the habit. its because of the detriments to our health but they seem to be focusing on addicts rather than future addicts that have a chance of avoidin damaging themselves
Although i'm a smoker i have to admit its bad for health and everything. then again most things we enjoy are bad for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

Quote:

---

dude thats right :eek: soon they are on about not treating diseases caused by smoking, but of course thats where alot of their funds come from. wtf

---

i wasnt on about them treating the diseases, I'm talking about the reasons they're banning the habit. its because of the detriments to our health but they seem to be focusing on addicts rather than future addicts that have a chance of avoidin damaging themselves
Although i'm a smoker i have to admit its bad for health and everything. then again most things we enjoy are bad for us.

---

yeah i got that buddy. but what you said also made me think about what the government plan to do about smoking related diseases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

I think the anti smoking campaigns have pretty much eliminated smoking for my generation. Yeah, there are alot of people who smoke, but I think the number of long time smokers in my generation will be significantly lower than all of the generations before me.

Quote:

---

i mean to say that a passive smoker only breathes in smoke when they are in say a pub, but the smoker breathes it in through 20 up to 40 fags a day. so the passive smoker is breathing in the dangerous fumes which havnt been filtered, but not possibley enough from their trip to the pub to be dangerous

---

I see.. This is pretty much my point.
However, I always thought that the filter was somehow worse than breathing in the smoke pure. I don't know where I got that idea from...

---

have you tried smoking a fag without the filter? the difference is easily noticable

I don't smoke cigarettes. I have only smoked without a filter anyway (and that wasn't tabacco) so I don't know the difference.

Theres a myth that filters contain tiny slithers of glass that scratch the inside of your throat to get the nicotine to the blood faster therby speeding up the addiction process. I'm not sure if this is true tho

I somehow think that regular smoking with filters is millions of times more detrimental to health than occasional wafts of unfiltered smoke... if this is wrong then what the hell are vehicle fumes doing to us? should we ban them too?

also, there is a slight difference smoking without filters but I got used to rollups without a filter at one point, im now back to ordinary straits at the mo. for some reason i can smoke a rollup without a filter but can't smoke one with a roach in it. odd huh?

btw shinangel im a dudette .. and i need a cigarette from all this talkin about them!

There's more to second-hand smoke than just... second-hand smoke. It doesn't need to be "omg cancer!" in order to effect the health of the people around them. What about the people who are asthmatic, or allergic to tobacco?

whats an asthmatic person doing in a pub where they know theyr at risk?

Quote:

---

There's more to second-hand smoke than just... second-hand smoke. It doesn't need to be "omg cancer!" in order to effect the health of the people around them. What about the people who are asthmatic, or allergic to tobacco?

---

It doesn't seem to have been a problem in the past. Are problems with asthmatics etc. going to start popping up suddenly, and without reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

btw shinangel im a dudette .. and i need a cigarette from all this talkin about them!

---

lol sorry dudette :) *goes for a fag too*

heres another point - i have to smoke outside cus my parents wont let me smoke in the house and its raining so I got pissed on. how fair is that, smokers being forced out into extreme weather to have a ciggie??? I dont force diabetics out to inject just cus I dont like the thought of needles
(disclaimer - i actually have no problems with needles its just a hypothetical situation)

Rain is not extreme weather, and it usually isn't "piss". :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Rain is not extreme weather, and it usually isn't "piss". :p

---

actually rain is composed of moisture evaporated from the ground, including urine although very very diluted. and it was just a figure of speech
Still its not nice to have to stand in the rain to smoke. and it is extremem where I am. It was raining pretty hard and i could have weakend my immune system and contracted a disease.
Now do i sound as melodramatic as the non-smokers? pardon the attidude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

heres another point - i have to smoke outside cus my parents wont let me smoke in the house and its raining so I got pissed on. how fair is that, smokers being forced out into extreme weather to have a ciggie??? I dont force diabetics out to inject just cus I dont like the thought of needles
(disclaimer - i actually have no problems with needles its just a hypothetical situation)

---

lol its the same with me. but i have a dry place to stand in my garden

I dont its not fair.. i had to leave 1/3 of it cus i just couldnt stand being all wet for much longer and it started to rain harder .. what a waste . fags are far more expensiver in UK than anywhere else in the world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

I dont its not fair.. i had to leave 1/3 of it cus i just couldnt stand being all wet for much longer and it started to rain harder .. what a waste . fags are far more expensiver in UK than anywhere else in the world!

---

yeah i buy the cheapest ones their are. i bought some yesterday to find they had gone up by 10p. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shinangel2292

this is discrimination against people who smoke. there should be bars for smokers and bars for non smokers. banning smoking altogether is a blatent act of discrimination

---

Discriminating against people who smoke?!? What about discriminating against people who don't smoke?!?! They can't go into a bar without inhaling smoke, which isn't healthy, and just isn't pleasant. Even cigarette ashes turn my stomach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

whats an asthmatic person doing in a pub where they know theyr at risk?

---

Its pretty bad if you can't go into a public place just because you have asthma or if you're allergic to smoke. They certainly have the right to go into a pub or a bar. However if they have an attack because of smokers in the area, I think the smokers would be held liable.

So if they can't enter into a public place because of people smoking, wouldn't this be discrimination against asthmatics?

I'm gonna stop arguing this point. The fact of the matter is, I'm happy, there's no more smoking allowed in any public places, in my province, be it bars, pubs, or restaurants. And the trend will continue, around the globe in years to come.

It'll actually induce people to quit smoking, especially when its a little inconvienient to go out into a blizzard to light up. Therefore, this will benefit everyone's health, both the smokers who quit because of the law, and the non-smokers.

Quote:

---

Discriminating against people who smoke?!? What about discriminating against people who don't smoke?!?! They can't go into a bar without inhaling smoke, which isn't healthy, and just isn't pleasant. Even cigarette ashes turn my stomach.

---

Although I don't think it is "discrimination" by any means, I should say that it would be the government discriminating against smokers, which isn't permissable. It may be reprehensible for me to discriminate against you, but it should be permited. The government, however, is a different story.

If people are worried about toxic fumes and all that, then maybe they should ban cars and factories and all that stuff, too?

And I agree with the people who said that smoking shouldn't be banned. Mainly because I smoke.

You all can smoke outside and in your homes. I hate the "non-smoking" section of a resturants and other similar places because all the smoke still travels over and lingers.

other bad for you habits which are banned in public, snorting coke, injecting heroine, drinking, sex, cutting. all nasty bad habits which aren't done in the streets. we discriminate against all those people that choose to do it in public. why? because it's for the good of others. smoking shouldn't be enouraged, it is a habit which kills those who do it and those around them. i think it was roy castle a biritsh entertainer he never smoked in his life but played in smoke filled bars and clubs. he later contracted lung cancer and died his lungs were those of a heavy smoker.

think of all the people that work in bars and restaurants, the barmaids and men, waiters, glass people, bouncers. all those will breath in huge amounts of smoke every day. what about them?

im not allowed to smoke in my home. what will i do when its -10 degrees outside and hailing or snowing or raining or something stupid like that?

then you suffer for your bad habit which kills you and others around you. simply. or....... you just don't bloody keep up such a horrible disgusting lethal habit. job done.

If it's such a problem, then why not considering, y'know, not smoking? I know, I'm really going off on a tangent here.

For all of you who say second hand smoke doesn't hurt you are full of .

I avoid smokers at all costs due to the fact that I don't like coughing or poisoning my lungs. Yet due to public smoking in enclosed spaces I still end up spending at least an hour or two a week around smokers.. though I do what I can to limit what I inhale :rolleyes2 .. and I do try to leave but not always possible.

end of 5th grade I contracted pneumonia for a period of 4-5 months. Doctor spent a long time trying to figure out what caused it... after a while he told my parents to avoid smoking anywhere near me(I had already done this to a large extent cept maybe an hour a week), because not only were my longs already nearly as bad as a chain smoker's but he said that it was part of the reason my immune system is no longer existant(ok.. it is still there but it doesn't do much anymore).

Also it ain't fun to be nearly impossible to get air in... I really have trouble breathing quite often now. Oh yes lets not forget that the Bronchaitis I got this year could possibly be traced back to second hand smoke(something about the smoke weakening what defenses I had left and thus allowing the regular cold I had to become worse).... and I had that from mid decemeber to mid may. Great fun second hand smoke is.

Btw as for car emisions.. first my dads car is not alowed on the road cause it puts out too many fumes(at it aint' as bad as I have seen).
Second you should prolly get a car that gets better fuel milliage... and due to gas prices thier is a push to better fuel economy.
Third Cars usually aren't running in enclosed public areas.. smokers are, according to that ban to, allowed to smoke outside.
Fourth if memory serves cigs put out carbon monoxide just like cars do, and I know that can kill. So don't try to say second hand cig smoke won't/can't kill.


Rights-
You have the right to smoke into you infringe on another's right. Then the right that is allowing you to infringe on another's can be taken. In enclosed areas you are harming another's right to health, however they are not harming you. so thus it seems to be logical that the only one infringing is the cig fella. Though I would think the gov would allow bar people to make smoking bars as long as there was already a non-smoking bar in the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenmorghane

im not allowed to smoke in my home. what will i do when its -10 degrees outside and hailing or snowing or raining or something stupid like that?

---

Just quit. Trust me, you'll thank yourself.

From your public profile, it looks like you grew up in the 90's. Didn't anyone teach you what that gross disgusting habit does to you? Just quit now while your still young and still able to salvage some of your lungs.

Edit: No offense meant, just trying to drive my point home.

Quote:

---

Bars and pubs NEED smoke.

---

While I don't smoke, it seems a bit strange that a place which sells toxic fluids (i.e, alcohol) for cunsumption, can't also allow people to smoke. I think it's up for the bar's owener to decide - you can have a smoking bar, or a non-smoking bar. Or, you could confine the smokers into another room or segment of the room. That seems rational to me.

People have a right to do stuff, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Smoking hurts others pretty bad, from spoiling their fun and the atmosphere by filling it with toxic gasses, to literally hurting their health. That should not be legal.

I really don't see the difference between punching someone, than to smoke in their faces. It's not a coiencedence that blowing smoke in someone's face is considered a highly agressive act, a severe taunt, like a slap or a punch.

Smoking in a public place should not be allowed. Private places - that's up for the owner, in my opinion. People don't HAVE to walk into a smokers' bar, but they have no choice in a bus or some other public space.

but then you are restricting where people can go.

Quote:

---

but then you are restricting where people can go.

---

No, I'm only restricting where they can smoke.

Rights are not infinite, and one's right doesn't exist under all circumstances.

its a consperasy im tellin ya first ban it from public spaces then the contry then the world >8Dmwhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah ahahahahahahahahaha

sorry war angel i think i put it wrong. allowing smoke in pubs and saying "People don't HAVE to walk into a smokers' bar" is restricting where non smokers (those in the right) can go.

Hmm.

I'll stop smoking if all of you stop eating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

sorry war angel i think i put it wrong. allowing smoke in pubs and saying "People don't HAVE to walk into a smokers' bar" is restricting where non smokers (those in the right) can go.

---

God, the DRAMA. No, people don't have to walk into smoker's bars. A pub is a pub, it includes smoke, alcohol and all that kind of stuff. If you don't like smoke, don't go, if you don't care or like it, go. Simple as that. What, now we have to prepare the places for EVERYONE to like it? Well, I hate the combination of yellow and red, not because it's the flag of the country I live in, but because I believe that combination in decoration hurts my eyes. So I think, well, I'm gonna sue McDonald's, because you know, they are repressing me with their colors. Oh, and the smell of the place. And the food, that represses my rights too. I also can't stand screaming children, take the children away, no children at McDonald's. I say, put some very nice classical decoration and serve the best italian pasta and mediterranean food. With an old Don Perignon, please. And at a good price, I refuse to pay more than 5 euros for all of it. No, wait, screw Euros, I hate them, I want to pay in Pesetas. Because I don't like red and yellow, I don't like bad smell, I don't like that food, I don't like the Euro and I can't stand screaming children.

You can't help to use the bus or the underground, to go to the hospital, to work in an office, to whatever. But you can avoid bars and pubs. And bars and pubs are for drinking and smoking. If you take the drinks or you take the smoke, a bar is not a bar, it's an ice cream parlor. If you don't like the smoke, don't go, the same way I don't go to McDonald's because I hate everything in it.

By the way, we have not banned doing nasty habits in front of people. Save from sex, you can drink and smoke. And sniff cocaine, although you're not allowed to have it. Have you ever seen someone sniff cocaine in front of you? Well, you'll see it's not really a great scandal, it's just a white dust into the nose of someone. Or are you also offended at someone sniffing cocaine in front of you? Not like I sniff cocaine in public or in private, the idea of having some laboratory powder up my nose and to my brain is something that creeps me, but well, I can't see where's the great offense.

First off: I disagree with smoking entirely. There is no possible justification for it, except for ignorance or an incredible apathy where your own well-being is concerned(not only physically, but physical dependence is not very good for self-esteem).

Secondly: I would hesitate to frequent an enclosed public space where smoking was allowed.

Thirdly: I disagree with the government making this decision. Restaurants, bars, pubs, et cetera are private property, and should be each owner's decision whether to allow smoking or not. Since most people don't smoke(or, if only one person in a family smokes, they don't typically smoke when sitting at a table with the rest of the family), this would force most family restaurants and such to ban smoking, and some pubs and such to allow it(or to at least have a smoking section), by virtue of non-smokers and smokers with non-smoking family avoiding establishments where smoking was allowed, and single smokers could have their cigarettes at the local smoking-allowed bar. Everybody wins.

Basically, I approve of smoking not being allowed in a public place. I just disapprove of government involvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

It sucks. I mean, take it out from everywhere, but respect the bars and pubs, damn it. No smoking there...it just takes away all the atmosphere, a bar without smoke is like a clinic were drinks are sold or something. Bars and pubs NEED smoke.

---

Perhaps bars, but a lot of pubs cater for families these days too, which brings back the issue of harming children with the smoke. I get what you're saying with it changing the atmosphere (whether that's a good thing or a bad thing could be debated), but I don't really think it's a reason to allow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath

Perhaps bars, but a lot of pubs cater for families these days too, which brings back the issue of harming children with the smoke. I get what you're saying with it changing the atmosphere (whether that's a good thing or a bad thing could be debated), but I don't really think it's a reason to allow it.

---

First, bars are not for family fun and children. Maybe in daytime, but by day this places- at least in my country- are quite empty and dull, and there's really not much smoke at all. At night, however, yes, it is full of smoke. And the atmosphere is the whole point of a bar. Why do you go to a bar, because you enjoy paying twice the price for drinks you would pay in a supermarket? No, you go there because of the atmosphere, because it is a place for pleasure, not health, because you want to play pool and speak with your friends while sharing a few drinks and smoking some cigarrettes (or joints, that depends on you and your friends). A bar has to keep an enclosed atmosphere, it has to have heavy air, all of this is the whole point of those places. I don't know about the bars you visit, but the ones I go to are like that, they look heavy in everything, out of any minimalism, and generally with some feeling of decadence in there. And everyone smokes there, and enjoys the place. I can't see how a law can be passed for non smokers to be able to enter in the bar happily and try to turn it into some naturalist shop.

Oh, yes, and asides from the image you may be having from me in this post, no, I do not smoke two Ducados boxes a day, in fact I barely smoke at all, just a cigarrette every now and then.

I wish in certain areas this would happen. BEcause nothing against smokers, but sometimes theres alot of em and it is kinda hard to breathe. Its just i like em to smoke maybe somewhere where it doesnt bother me instead of gathering in front of a store and smoking @_@; its like WOW damn..><

However i think the reason why we the US dont get this ban is because whether or not people will say, is that US relies on the tax on cigerettes and the people addicted to it. In the end they will keep taxing smokers, to gain more tax dollars for themselves, its great money. Thats why you always see multimllion dollar lawsuits, which make the cigarettes more expensive, which then the tax goes straight into the government. Its somewhat obvious i feel. As if the Kyoto treaty isnt enough to show that the US cares about money over most things.

EDIT: I am all for smoking and stuff in bars and certain adult pubs(theres family ones too). If there isnt then well whats the point? =/

I have to admit that I absolutely hate being around smokers most of the time. I don't mind social smoking, and I would do it myself if my boyfriend would let me (xP), but I freaking hate walking to class and having to walk past people smoking. No, I will not go all the way around the building to the other door. No, when I smoker is heading my way I will not quickly move thirty feet away. Smoke takes up a lot of air space and I don't appreciate having to walk through it or smell it or smell like it.

I guess I agree with Raistlin on this issue. I wish more places would make it a policy to keep smoking out off of their property without government involvement.

alloiwng smoking in bars does not protect their owners and employees.

A lot of you say that it should be up to the pub owners to disallow smoking in their establishments. This would do NOTHING, as by doing that their driving away clientelle, causing them to go to their competition down the street, where they allow smoking. Therefore NO pubs or bars would disallow smoking, because they would give bars who allow smoking an unfair advantage, and us non-smokers would still have to suffer that gross, disgusting toxic $hit those smokers blow into the air (which is INCREDIBALLY f#ckin' stupid).

Government intervention is the ONLY way to go. By doing this, smoking is automatically disallowed in ALL bars, creating a level playing field for all establishments who sell liquor. They even went as far as to even disallow smoking on bar patios/decks, as only certain places have decks, which would give them an unfair advantage over bars without decks/patios.

This is great, as smoking slowly KILLS YOU and those around you. I can't believe there are still relatively young people out there who do smoke. Its definitely one of the stupidiest actions/decisions you could make in your entire life. Therefore banning it in public establishments is a fabulous idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazybayman

A lot of you say that it should be up to the pub owners to disallow smoking in their establishments. This would do NOTHING, as by doing that their driving away clientelle, causing them to go to their competition down the street, where they allow smoking.

---

No, wait, are you saying non smoking bars would get no clients? If that is true, it's because people choose bars with smoke. If people really disliked smoke in the bars, then non smoker bars should have no problems, right? In fact, I believe letting the owner choose would be the best idea because there is a number of people who dislike smoke in bars. I don't know how many people actually dislike it, probably fewer than the ones who prefer it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

No, wait, are you saying non smoking bars would get no clients? If that is true, it's because people choose bars with smoke. If people really disliked smoke in the bars, then non smoker bars should have no problems, right? In fact, I believe letting the owner choose would be the best idea because there is a number of people who dislike smoke in bars. I don't know how many people actually dislike it, probably fewer than the ones who prefer it.

---

NO! Smokers would no longer go to that place and if the smoker has friends who don't smoke that go with him then you lost some non-smokers also.

In your country maybe people prefer it but over here(at least in chicago) the number of "bars" keeps getting going down because people don't want that. They want an up scale drinking spot that you can take the family to. No dank, dark or gloomy bars filled with smoke.

When New York did this the bars lost tons of money because people who smoke would just go to new jersey bars where they could smoke while all the non-smokers stayed.

All this does is screw over the smokers. Most people who don't smoke avoid areas with smoke like a plauge.

there should be a) non-smoking and smoking bars and pubs or b) bars and pubs which have non-smoking and smoking areas. it is discrimination to ban smoking everywhere. this "free" world suddenly is now only a free world for non-smokers. i should be able to smoke anywhere where i am not bothering anyone. i should not be only allowed to smoke on my premises. i dont own my own premises which means basically i am not aloud to smoke period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

No, wait, are you saying non smoking bars would get no clients? If that is true, it's because people choose bars with smoke. If people really disliked smoke in the bars, then non smoker bars should have no problems, right? In fact, I believe letting the owner choose would be the best idea because there is a number of people who dislike smoke in bars. I don't know how many people actually dislike it, probably fewer than the ones who prefer it.

---

NO! Smokers would no longer go to that place and if the smoker has friends who don't smoke that go with him then you lost some non-smokers also.

---

Exactly. This gives the "Smoking allowed bars an unfair advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

In your country maybe people prefer it but over here(at least in chicago) the number of "bars" keeps getting going down because people don't want that. They want an up scale drinking spot that you can take the family to. No dank, dark or gloomy bars filled with smoke. .

---

I've frequented bars for years, and the one thing I hate is the smoke. And if there is any non-smoker who likes a smokey bar, either they're lying, or there's something wrong. Its the same in America, I've been there. No non-smoker in their right mind would prefer a smokey bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

When New York did this the bars lost tons of money because people who smoke would just go to new jersey bars where they could smoke while all the non-smokers stayed.

---

Then soon they will cut out smoking in New Jersey. Then the world becomes a healthier place, and all bars are on a level playing field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

All this does is screw over the smokers. Most people who don't smoke avoid areas with smoke like a plauge.

---

How is it screwing over smokers, when its helping them, because it is in their best interest to quit. And who cares if its unfair for smokers. I find it incredibally unfair to walk into a public establishment, and have smoke blown in my face.

Most of all, it will make public places more appealing to the overwhelming majority of non-smokers. Its beyond me how educated people still take up such a stupid habit, when it kills you, its expensive, and harms the people around you. And yes non-smokers avoid smoke ridden places because it is UNHEALTHY, and disgusting. Or like you said, like a plague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazybayman

How is it screwing over smokers, when its helping them, because it is in their best interest to quit. And who cares if its unfair for smokers.

---

How is it helping people who enjoy smoking, by singling them out and making it harder for them to smoke?

well i may like shooting up, snorting coke and doing weed, but that doesn't stop my government doing it's damn hardest to stop me. because it's bad for everyone. it's the same with smoking. i don't care if they enjoy it or not, it's bad for them and those around them any discouragement of this is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

well i may like shooting up, snorting coke and doing weed, but that doesn't stop my government doing it's damn hardest to stop me. because it's bad for everyone. it's the same with smoking. i don't care if they enjoy it or not, it's bad for them and those around them any discouragement of this is a good thing.

---

Me thinks you listen to too much hype. Smoking is unhealthy to you and those around you. But no more than drinking, fast food, and driving. People need to get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Autumn Rain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

well i may like shooting up, snorting coke and doing weed, but that doesn't stop my government doing it's damn hardest to stop me. because it's bad for everyone. it's the same with smoking. i don't care if they enjoy it or not, it's bad for them and those around them any discouragement of this is a good thing.

---

Me thinks you listen to too much hype. Smoking is unhealthy to you and those around you. But no more than drinking, fast food, and driving. People need to get over it.

---

:laugh: Fast Food does not hurt the people around you. Driving hurts the people around you if you are unsafe. Drinking hurts the people around you if you do it excessivly and then actually hurt people.

Smoking is different. It hurts people just by them being there even if you only have a puff.

What the crap where you thinking when you typed that up there?

Because being around someone smoking does not cause "ACK!! Instant DEATH!!111" like people want to claim. Second hand smoke can cause you to die much sooner, but usually only in the cases of you spending ALL DAY, EVERYDAY with someone. Going into a bar for a couple of hours isn't gonna hurt you. Not to mention the fact that alot people that go to bars end up drunk. Hell, most places that were allowing smoking had designated "Smoking Areas", thus you were rarely near the people smoking. People need to stop waching all those "Truth" commercials, cause they are going to your heads.

Truth sucks and anyone who listens to them is teh suxs!!!1

I think everyone here is aware that being around smoke does not cause Instant Death. As for smoke areas...those are laughable. I can't count the number of times I have been in the non smoking section only to be bothered by smoke.

I can't wait for the smoking ban to come into force next year. I look forward to being able to go out and not coming home smelling like an ashtray.

*shrugs* That's you. I'm mildly allergic to cigarette smoke ad have rarely been that bothered by smoke in my area. As long as it's not so bad that it fills my lungs.

I'm not sure smokers really grasp how far their smoke spreads in open-air areas. I can easily smell a smoker from a good twenty feet away. When driving I can smell if someone has a cigarette hanging out their car window even if my windows are up. When my roomate's brother was visiting he smoked out on the balcony with the door open and the smoke came right on in, down the hall, and under my bedroom door.

I'm not worried about these little incidents adding up to my death or anything, but it stinks, it irritates my eyes, and it sticks to my hair and clothes. It's just plain rude to expose people to that. If I were any less of a lady I'd sit in the smoking areas at school and just fart to my hearts content. But, uh... I lost my point but I'm seriously tempted to do that sometimes.

Wow, lots of bitching.

.opt

Is it different from any other thread in this forum?

Haha...true.

I don't like the fact that people refer to non-smokers as if they're some
brotherhood against smokers. I don't know who the hell all of you are but
I don't smoke and I enjoy smokey places. I don't mind non-smokey places,
but in places like bars or clubs smoke adds to the atmosphere. Of course
according to crazybayman there's something wrong with my mind simply
because I don't give a if people around me are smoking. I think a lot
of people have started to ride the bandwagon and it sounds like there's a
lot of exaggeration going on.

The fact that smoking has been compared--numerous times infact--to
doing heroin is...well hilarious. What's even crazier is that the heroin
that's being compared to cigarettes is on the same level as smoking
marijuana. Dear lord, the melodrama!

.opt

*skimming replies*

Quote:

---

A lot of you say that it should be up to the pub owners to disallow smoking in their establishments. This would do NOTHING, as by doing that their driving away clientelle, causing them to go to their competition down the street, where they allow smoking. Therefore NO pubs or bars would disallow smoking, because they would give bars who allow smoking an unfair advantage, and us non-smokers would still have to suffer that gross, disgusting toxic $hit those smokers blow into the air (which is INCREDIBALLY f#ckin' stupid).

---

That may have been true several decades ago, when the majority of people were either smokers or apathetic to smoking. However, today most people are against exposing their kids or themselves to second-hand smoking in any fashion, and are adamant about it. Since most people either don't smoke or don't want to smoke around their family, most restaurants would be either non-smoking, or have a seperate smoking section. Most bars would allow smoking. And there would be exceptions, such as one bar in an area banning smoking to get a monopoly on the drinking, non-smoking customers(if there was such a demand). When the government's out of it, and the people actually voice their opinion, the supply meets the demand. If a lot of people in an area demand non-smoking restaurants, many restaurants will turn non-smoking(or have seperate sections) to meet this demand, because they want to business. When the government steps in, the owners lose any incentive to remain non-smoking, depending on how well this law is enforced(and, where small restauarants and pubs are concerned, I can only assume not very much).
If the people in an area don't care enough to voice and act on their opinions, then nothing happens. Then, it's a case of "tough ." It is not the government's responsibility to think and make decisions for everybody about smoking and their tolerance for it.

Quote:

---

In your country maybe people prefer it but over here(at least in chicago) the number of "bars" keeps getting going down because people don't want that. They want an up scale drinking spot that you can take the family to. No dank, dark or gloomy bars filled with smoke.

---

Eh, maybe it's something cultural, but when I go to bars it's at night. Between eleven and six in the morning. And seriously, that's not my idea of family fun.

And anyway, if people in Chicago prefer a place where you can take your family to, then where is the problem on the whole letting the bar manager decide? It should benefit the ones that ban smoking on their bars. I really can't see the problem. You want a bar without smoke? Go to one. I prefer it with smoke, I realise it's not healthy but I really don't care to my health to the extreme of avoiding cigarrette smoke around me on a friday night every two weeks. And I can't stand the idea of my favourite dank, dark gloomy bars getting a smoke ban supported by people who would never really visit them. Because the whole point of those places is to be like that, because that's the atmosphere I like. Some bars could ban smoking for all I care. But many need to mantain it.

Non-smoking sections don't really help. Not unless they are completely sealed off and have different vent and such systems(so basically two seperate air tight buildings).

Shulp wasn't kidding about how far smoking can go if the wind is right. As for overexageration. Well I had the pneumonia to prove it, not to mention I could show you my grades for that quarter. Pneumonia plus school equals bad grades.

However I will aggree that very isolated exposure isn't overly dangerous. But if everytime I go to the supermarket or the local gas station(the emplyees' smoke or a few do) I have to deal with it, it kinda adds up. Particually since with our income we stop everytime we are in the vicinity and have spare money(since we are prolly out at home anyways).

How much passive smoking did you have, Shun? I mean, the same way I defend smoke on bars, I don't believe people should be exposed to smoke everywhere. I believe banning smoking in the streets is over-reacting, it's true smoke can travel quite a lot, but well, most gets disipated with normal air in the first few meters of flight.

But yes, I specially think parents should be caerful with passive smoking. My father is a smoker, he smokes a lot, and well, even though I just take a cigarrette from time to time, I have that particular broken voice, wich hey, I believe it sounds very nice and is useful for people like me who have to rely on their voice for their jobs or future jobs, but well, probably my lungs aint that good. Or maybe my voice is natural, I am not sure, but the truth is I can smoke Ducados or marihuana without coughing even a little, wich probably means I have inhaled so much in my life I have becomed used to it. That can't be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

However I will aggree that very isolated exposure isn't overly dangerous. But if everytime I go to the supermarket or the local gas station(the emplyees' smoke or a few do) I have to deal with it, it kinda adds up. Particually since with our income we stop everytime we are in the vicinity and have spare money(since we are prolly out at home anyways).

---

the amount of harm second-hand smoking causes is irrelevent. Actually, if it caused more harm, that should only galvanize people to take their families only to non-smoking establishments, thus taking away any necessity for government involvement.

Governments are not there to raise your kids, they are not there to say "you don't like being in public places with smokers." I don't? What if I'm a smoker? If I'm a smoker(which is perfectly legal) and own a bar, why can't I allow people to smoke? It's my bar. If non-smokers or families don't want to be around smokers, they won't come. If I lose sufficient business, I'll be forced to change my policy.

I am not sure exactly how much smoke I have enhaled... But I do what I can to aviod it.. but prolly 1/3-2/3's of adults and about 1/4-1/3 of underage smokers smoke here. Real bad. Our gas station will even sell underage(and in a small town like this most know everyone). In fact the place has been written up a few times by state troopers. I was there when the lady was caught... was quite funny(her reaction "Ah .. I hat it when this happens" or some such).. though I think she got fired for it.. which isn't funny.

Anyways I think I mentioned above that if there was at least one non-smoking bar in the area the rest of the bar owners should be allowed to do as they wish. Though I guess the gov doesn't exactly have to mandate it since many times it happens anyways. But I think your veiw on how many aviod smoking areas is highly larger then it actually is. Almost all non-smokers around here could care less(I am an exception.. but I have also suffered serious lung damage from second hand smoke). First thing I get asked when I go to a new doctor is, "you smoke alot don't you?" Hell no. Can't stand it, cough up a storm.

But I wouldn't even dare banning it altogether that ain't wise nor right.

P.S. part of the reason may be I am highly succeptable to chemicals. I only need 1/8-1/4 dose of normal med to get fully med-ed.. and actually if I continue on the medicine for a few weeks I tend to end up in the hospital from "allergic reaction". Really I think it is that I either allergic to every chem out there or else I am just sensitive(since perfume can knock me out or at least make me very very dizzy in little ammounts.. I'll go with sensitive). Though, bad or good, I seem to become more insensitive every year.

passive smoking kills. fact. preveting deaths is the governments job. what we pay taxes for. and so preenting passive smoking prevents death and the government has done it's job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Autumn Rain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazybayman

How is it screwing over smokers, when its helping them, because it is in their best interest to quit. And who cares if its unfair for smokers.

---

How is it helping people who enjoy smoking, by singling them out and making it harder for them to smoke?

---

Its helping them because its promoting them quiting a bad habit that's gonna kill them in the long run. Therefore it should be harder for them to smoke! Isn't suicide illegal? I know its not at the same magnitude, but its completely justifiable for a government to ban certain things in public places if its going to kill the people doing it.

Plus, as EVERYONE knows its unhealthy and unpleasant for the people around them. THAT alone should be enough to ban smoking. I grew up in a non-smoking family, and the mere sight of a filled ashtray turns my stomach. If someone were to spark up a cigarette right beside me in a restaurant, or in close quarters I would consider it rude, because its bad for my health, stinks, and would make me smell like I was smoking. If someone tried to spark one up in my house, I would tell them to go outside.

The $hit is just disgusting. I can't believe there's people out there who think its alright. Bars and pubs is the LAST establishment here to disallow smoking. That means the only place people can smoke is outside and in their homes (and many don't even do that because it stinks up their house and its UNHEALTHY for their kids). Thank God.

Quote:

---

Its helping them because its promoting them quiting a bad habit that's gonna kill them in the long run. Therefore it should be harder for them to smoke! Isn't suicide illegal? I know its not at the same magnitude, but its completely justifiable for a government to ban certain things in public places if its going to kill the people doing it.

---

i dont want to give up smoking! regardless of how you feel about it, i enjoy smoking. that might not make sense to you and you might think what a tosser i am. but you cant take away my right to smoke. you think your doing us a favour by "discouraging" smoking. well heres some news for you, IT IS ONLY MAKING ME WANT TO SMOKE MORE! as far as im concerned, all you anti smokers out there have no place telling me i should give up. i do not smoke around people who are non-smokers and am doing nothing wrong. my life is MY life and i will do what i want with it. if i knock 20 years of it off by being a smoker, i will at least have enjoyed my life cause you dont get a second one.

Quote:

---

passive smoking kills. fact. preveting deaths is the governments job. what we pay taxes for. and so preenting passive smoking prevents death and the government has done it's job.

---

Stepping outside kills. Fact. Not allowing you to step outside, in a car, bus, or airplane prevents death. So the government should lock us all up.

If you don't like smoking, don't go where it's allowed. How the HELL is that not fair?

Quote:

---

passive smoking kills. fact. preveting deaths is the governments job. what we pay taxes for. and so preenting passive smoking prevents death and the government has done it's job.

---

no it doesn't. Common sense.

Quote:

---

you think your doing us a favour by "discouraging" smoking. well heres some news for you, IT IS ONLY MAKING ME WANT TO SMOKE MORE!

---

Yeah, that's normal. The more they annoy you with not doing it, the more you wish to do it.

nikotine i'm confused. we're you saying that passive smoking doesn't kill?

In large enough quantities I am certian passive smoke can lead to Lung cancer... which last I checked can kill. Not to mention it ruins the health of whomever is exposed to it.

Anyways I can easily see a place allowing smokers to smoke as long as thier was a non-smoking establishment of the same type(to gas stations one where employee's smoke one where they don't etc... in a larger city this shouldn't be a problem.. in smaller however).

This is a question of who's rights get stomped on. One gas station within 30+(not difficult in the boonies) miles you either use it or don't have a car, without a car mainting a job can be difficult(with out a car my dad would have to ride a bike for 3 or so hours(at around 20mph) to get to work. As it is he works 12-18 hours a day... so that could make some trouble.) the station is a smoking establishment. So thus non-smokers rights have been stomped. much more severly then making the smoker go outside. That is barely harming one's rights at all(unless there is bad weather.. but then you always got your home, and patio deck things).


Basically I look at it that some one's rights will be stepped on(at least in small towns). So I would rather do least harm(banning smoking in public buildings) and at the same time stop people from harming/killing one another.

Cloud, you're not very good at debating. People are stepping all over you
and you keep replying with 2 line posts which don't address most of the
issues directed toward you.

Preventing deaths isn't the government's job. Giving its people security is
the government's job. Massive difference.

.opt

you want a longer post? fine. the one line post was there because it was an actual question. it was not a part of the deabte i was confused by what she had said that is all.

people here will testify that i am capable of posting some extremely long posts when the need is there. now it is not. there is no reason to post more than is required.

as for not being able to debate. i think since i came back onto this forum and have ignited alot of debates some on very controversial issues i have always fought my corner well. most people would agree with that and i am very capable whe it comes to debating.

on this topic i have became slightly lazy for a few reasons. most of what i would normally debate is being done for me and i don't belive in repeating what someone else has said. and really i've already won. come march i'll be drinking in smoke free pubs so i don't have much to argue for.

and coming to my only real point of deabte here. the role of government is to prevent death. to have a government that does not is a laissez-faire society. which was discarded with the rest of the crap ideas on society in the victorian era and early 20th century. to have a governments whose job it is not to prevent death and illness in it's population leads to poor sanitation and cholera, building regulation, child factory workers and miners, no health and safety, leaded bread and no aid for the needy.

the idea that the government's sole duty was to control and fund the army is an idea dead for a hundred years. and rightly so.

Quote:

---

the role of government is to prevent death.

---

No, the role of the government is the protection of individual rights. This, primarily, means freedom. The freedom to choose whether to smoke or not, the freedom to choose whether to frequent an establishment that allows smoking or not. It's YOUR choice - it's not the government's job to make choices for you.

Quote:

---

to have a government that does not is a laissez-faire society. which was discarded with the rest of the crap ideas on society in the victorian era and early 20th century.

---

It was never tried in the first place.

Quote:

---

to have a governments whose job it is not to prevent death and illness in it's population leads to poor sanitation and cholera, building regulation, child factory workers and miners, no health and safety, leaded bread and no aid for the needy.

---

The closest the world ever came to a free society was the United States(up until early-mid 1900s). The US experienced, during that time period, an unprecedented economic explosion, along with massive increases in living conditions, standard health, and average incomes. That's what a system based on "lasseiz-faire" competition(which encourages growth) does.

oh dear another american thinking america was the only country to have laissez-faire. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

britain had it. it was ened by the liberals. it was the time leaded bread was sold, people were busy catching cholera, children were working in factories and down the pits, we had dung heaps in cities, houses for factory workers consisted of one room for the whole family.

those were the days..........

yep we did have it. i studied the time too. did an essay on the end of it (the start of the welfare start) which i passed my hisotry exam on. and unless that was all some great mistake of mine and the examiner never saw it at all then i do believe that i have a point.

must try harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

you want a longer post? fine. the one line post was there because it was an actual question. it was not a part of the deabte i was confused by what she had said that is all.

---

The problem is, nearly every one of your posts has been a line or two
and they've mostly ignored the posts coming before it. You say you
don't like to restate something that's already been said, this means
that you must read the other posts in the thread or you are a liar. Now
if you do read the other posts in the thread, why is it that you have
not addressed the posts which have been directed at you? Either you
have not read them--and thus are a liar. The other option is that you
have read them and ignored them either because you do not feel they
matter enough to spend your time replying--in which case you're simply
egotistical, or you do not have a response and you are hoping that
people won't notice that you could not argue your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

people here will testify that i am capable of posting some extremely long posts when the need is there. now it is not. there is no reason to post more than is required.

---

The problem here is that to form a decent argument, you're going to
need more than a couple of fragment sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

as for not being able to debate. i think since i came back onto this forum and have ignited alot of debates some on very controversial issues i have always fought my corner well. most people would agree with that and i am very capable whe it comes to debating.

---

Unfortunately I have yet to see this. Also remember that starting an
argument is different from debating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

on this topic i have became slightly lazy for a few reasons. most of what i would normally debate is being done for me and i don't belive in repeating what someone else has said. and really i've already won. come march i'll be drinking in smoke free pubs so i don't have much to argue for.

---

I think the people in Uzbekistan should be killed daily for political crimes.
I don't have to argue this point because it already happens. I win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and coming to my only real point of deabte here. the role of government is to prevent death. to have a government that does not is a laissez-faire society. which was discarded with the rest of the crap ideas on society in the victorian era and early 20th century. to have a governments whose job it is not to prevent death and illness in it's population leads to poor sanitation and cholera, building regulation, child factory workers and miners, no health and safety, leaded bread and no aid for the needy.

---

Once again, the government's job is not to prevent death. If that were
the government's job, society would be much different. The
government's job is to protect its citizens. Death is only a fraction of
the problems which people will face in their lifetimes. If the government's
sole function is to prevent death, there is no need, and indeed no
room for personal freedom. Yet we do have personal freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the idea that the government's sole duty was to control and fund the army is an idea dead for a hundred years. and rightly so.

---

Where have you come up with this? Nobody said anything about funding
an army. You've now started to debate a point which no one has even
considered. Either you cannot debate anything else, or you have gone
on a tangent and brought something into the argument which does
not belong, a sure sign that you are not very skilled in debating.

.opt

actually about funding an army.... you brought it up. yep you did, remember? "Giving its people security is the government's job." an army is protect the security of the people and the state.

the posts coming before mine which i am said to ignore, were already addressed by other members. in which case there is no reason to reply.

"Unfortunately I have yet to see this. Also remember that starting an
argument is different from debating." you'll notice from your quote of me that i say i start and fight my threads. so i do debate it. search through my list of posts to make sure if you want.

and on the same note. do end this. i hope this post of mine will be the last post on the matter on how i debate things (cos of course you have a god given right to decide the wrong and right way to do things around here). it's not connected to this thread, it's not supposed be in this forum or any other, it was basicly a direct attack on me forbidden on this section, and most of all you are no better than anyone else in this forum and so have no right to decide how things are debated here.

do move on and leave this subject. it's not appropiate.

No matter how you cut it Cloud 9 is at least partly right. One of our rights is the right to life. Therefore, part of it's job is to protect the lives of the citizens... however it isn't its only duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

No, the role of the government is the protection of individual rights. This, primarily, means freedom. The freedom to choose whether to smoke or not, the freedom to choose whether to frequent an establishment that allows smoking or not. It's YOUR choice - it's not the government's job to make choices for you.

---

In small towns where they are the only place like that it ain't your chioce to begin with. Our gas station emplyee's smoke, and as I have provided above they have been cited by police on a few occasions, but it continues.

Anyways you kinda need gas to get places.. particually if your job is an hour car drive away(I actually checked it out.. about 3 hours on bike). So I get gas and get smoked up.. or I don't get gas and attempt to ride in. Now if I worked my dad's hours that would mean I would only get 3 hours of sleep at home and an hour or so to get ready before repeating. Get gas on the other end? opps.. smokey there too. How about the town 22 mins away? smokey there. Really there aint' much here that doesn't allow smoking cept for a select few places.(thank god millers isn't smokey inside.. though the premises are awful).

Anyways I could car less if there was a smoke and a non-smoke place. But I feel the rights of the non-smoker over-ride since they aren't the one impeding on another's rights to begin with.

Quote:

---

oh dear another american thinking america was the only country to have laissez-faire. wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

---

No, the US never had lassez-faire capitalism either. I merely said it came the closest, and under that system consistently raised the standard of living for every citizen in it. As opposed to the communist system which has consistently lowered the standard of living for every country that practiced it. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

One of our rights is the right to life. Therefore, part of it's job is to protect the lives of the citizens... however it isn't its only duty.

---

The government's only job is to protect your right to live your life. That means that nobody can make a claim on another person's right to live THEIR life either. There is no other way to possibly justify freedom - which is why the socialist ideology(which says nobody has a right to their own life) lacks freedom, and the capitalist ideology(which guarantees it) embodies it. Freedom presupposes choice. This nonsensical smoking ban takes away a choice that should rightfully belong to business owners. Until and unless smoking becomes illegal(haha), then this is wrong.

Quote:

---

nikotine i'm confused. we're you saying that passive smoking doesn't kill?

---

Yes.

Well, i live with parents who smoke, so it's no stranger to me. Of course, i dont like being around it, and it often times makes me fell sick, but i have gotten used to it.

I can understand why people would want to ban it, due to the health risks, but i can aslo understand why business owners would protest it, due to the drop in business.

So, even though i hate being around smoke, and i hate being around smokers, they have every right to allow smoking in bars & such.

I guess the only way to solve this problem would be to:

A: Ban smoking (yeah right)

or

B: Get everyone (or almost everyone) to quit smoking. Although thats damn near impossible.

I'm all for it. When I go to restaurants with my 12 year old brother, I tend to want to eat and not have to smell smoke from people who can't seem to find the patience to wait an hour or two for their precious carcinostick.

What I don't understand is why do so many people still continue their bad habit despite massively scattered warnings in the media and from adept speakers. "Government Warning: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yliette

What I don't understand is why do so many people still continue their bad habit despite massively scattered warnings in the media and from adept speakers. "Government Warning: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health."

---

Um, they're addicted, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yliette

What I don't understand is why do so many people still continue their bad habit despite massively scattered warnings in the media and from adept speakers. "Government Warning: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health."

---

Um, they're addicted, dude.

---

:lol:


My only question is why (or how) people start in the first place.

Lack of self esteem I'd say.

.opt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yliette

What I don't understand is why do so many people still continue their bad habit despite massively scattered warnings in the media and from adept speakers. "Government Warning: Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health."

---

Um, they're addicted, dude.

---

:lol:


My only question is why (or how) people start in the first place.

---

i started on weed and started smoking tobacco when weed was unavailable. most start because a) they want to be cool or b) because of pier pressure. both are obviously childish ways but the reason is unimportant.

(now tell me why it is important because thats how we can stop it! exept you never will stop it)

One cigarette is enough to realize that tobacco is pointless. "I guess I'm going to blow smoke out of stick! Yeah, that sounds fun!" I mean seriously, wtf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

My only question is why (or how) people start in the first place.

---

Cigarettes weren't really considered bad until the late 80s - early 90s.

But still, the fact remains that smoking cigarettes makes no sense. It's basically blowing smoke out of a stick. It doesn't make sense.

I don't have a problem with anyone who smokes, I just don't understand why they do.

I detest smoking.

I also protest this ban for all it is worth. Which, I suppose, actually means zero protesting.

Hah, ironic.