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)
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
well put!this is bull
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!
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.
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.
WICKED-AWESOME SIG.
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
A good portion of laws should be abolished.Is that not the purpose of all laws? Do you suggest abolishing all laws preventing people from doing what they wish?
I complain about losing any right.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.
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.It is toxic gas. It might not initially kill you, but you can't deny that it affects your health negatively.
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?
Exactly. A business owner is free to do what he likes, but it isn't the governments place to stop us.but if your a business owner pretty much you can tell the smokers to light up outside lol.
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!!!
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)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
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?
dude thats rightsoon they are on about not treating diseases caused by smoking, but of course thats where alot of their funds come from. wtf
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.
I see.. This is pretty much my point.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
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...
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 themselvesdude thats right
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.
Last edited by Ravenmorghane; 07-05-2005 at 04:47 PM. Reason: did the quote thing wrong
yeah i got that buddy. but what you said also made me think about what the government plan to do about smoking related diseasesi 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 themselvesdude thats right
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
