NationStates Jolt Archive

Not that it's very likely to happen now, but there seems to be a big overlamp between people who are complaining about the possibility that they may be banned from smoking in pubs and restaurants, and people who spend all their time bitching about the government favouring minorities through positive discrimination. The smoking shouldn't be banned lobby are (as a rule) the people who spend all their time bitching about rights for whites, feminazis and a society that favours ethnic minorities.
More people don'ty smoke than do, chaps. Shut up whiningg about how minorities deserve no rights, or shut up whining about how your rights as a minority of cancer fans are being oppressed. This is an either/or situation: you can't have both.

Well what smoking ban are you talking about? There has been more than one in recent times.

Should be up to the pub/resturant in my opinion. Some people want to go to the pub smoke and drink and enjoy that atmoshphere and I think that should definatly be legal to do.

If enough people really care for it that much surely more and more places will adopt full non smoking, but an out right ban takes away the choice for one group entirely.

Smoking pollutes the air in the restaurant and affects everyone in it, along with posing a fire hazard and aggravating respiratory problems. They have a right to smoke, but they don't have the right to force everyone to be exposed to their noxious habit. They should be totally segregated from nonsmokers if they aren't banned.

You have the right to endanger your own health

You do not have the right to endanger the health of those around you

The smoking shouldn't be banned lobby are (as a rule) the people who spend all their time bitching about rights for whites, feminazis and a society that favours ethnic minorities.

Nice try. There is no "rule," you're just making that up so you can try to ramrod anyone opposed to a smoking ban into a nice, easily targeted group of hypocrisy. This is called a strawman, chap.

Yes, more people do not smoke than smoke. That is why mostly, this thread will have nonsmokers patting themselves on the back, going on about how smoking stinks, how anyone who smokes is an addict, and how smokers are baby-eating murderers. Just like the last dozen anti-smoking threads.

But for the record, yes. I cause cancer. Deliberately. When I drive to work, I take the longest possible route - that way my car pollutes extra. I also drive faster, for the same reason. Since almost none of the anti-smoking lobby wants to ban cars, you basically support me in this endeavor and probably practice it yourself.

So you see we're all basically in agreement here. It's just I *also* have the *added* modus operandi of cigarette smoking. Sadly, that doesn't really add to the greenhouse effect or global warming. But that's why I still have my car no matter what you ban! Neener neener! :p

You have the right to endanger your own health

You do not have the right to endanger the health of those around you

Where do we stop. Ban cars since they cause pollution and might lead to global warming?.

The media have seriously over played the dangers of 2nd hand smoke.

Nice try. There is no "rule," you're just making that up so you can try to ramrod anyone opposed to a smoking ban into a nice, easily targeted group of hypocrisy. This is called a strawman, chap.
Read any of Gary Bushell's comments on the matter?

Where do we stop. Ban cars since they cause pollution and might lead to global warming?.

Cars and smoking are nowhere near the same. You don't intentionally inhale exaust from the pipe, nor do you sit next to something that expels it. Plus, cars are run in the open air and not indoors.

The media have seriously over played the dangers of 2nd hand smoke.

It's still bad for respiratory problems and smells horrendous.

Read any of Gary Bushell's comments on the matter?

Nope, but its irrelevant since I, and many others who oppose the banning of cigarettes, are not Gary Bushell.

So you're denying that complaining about the government picking on the minority who smoke is hypocrisy because you're not Gary Bushell?

It's still bad for respiratory problems and smells horrendous.

I still think the option for both non smoking pubs and smoking pubs should exist. I don't smoke much myself, but I do enjoy on the weekend while drinking to smoke, and I wouldn't like to step outside everytime. I get some people don't like it but to outright ban it is unfair to does who smoke.
Putting pressure on more and more places to voluntarily go non smoking is fine by me definatly. Your arguments make sense and I'd agree to some extent but yeah leave some option.

So you're denying that complaining about the government picking on the minority who smoke is hypocrisy because you're not Gary Bushell?

No, I'm denying that

The smoking shouldn't be banned lobby are (as a rule) the people who spend all their time bitching about rights for whites, feminazis and a society that favours ethnic minorities.

because you're describing (I assume) Gary Bushell and applying that "as a rule" to anyone who opposes a smoking ban.

As a part-time barman for two years, I'll say this: smoking sucks. Ban it on all business premises.

because you're describing (I assume) Gary Bushell and applying that "as a rule" to anyone who opposes a smoking ban.
All of the whining about this I've seen in tbhis from the media is from people who (at best) wish to send anyone of Asian descent back where they came from or (at worst) shoot every Muslim in thew country. In this case, they don't have a lot of business complaining about being an oppressed minority.

It should be left to the restaraunt owners to decide the smoking rules: outright banned, segregated, or wholly permissible. It's private property the owner allows the public to enter.

Don't like the restaraunt's rules? Don't work nor eat there. Patronize businesses that are smoke-free.

All of the whining about this I've seen in tbhis from the media is from people who (at best) wish to send anyone of Asian descent back where they came from or (at worst) shoot every Muslim in thew country. In this case, they don't have a lot of business complaining about being an oppressed minority.
Funny. All the people I've heard TALKING (not whining) about the smoking ban are regular folks. Not rabid racists, sexists or white-nationers. You are talking about a minority of people (racists, sexists and white-nationers) and an even smaller minority within that minority (those that smoke).

It should be left to the restaraunt owners to decide the smoking rules: outright banned, segregated, or wholly permissible. It's private property the owner allows the public to enter.

Don't like the restaraunt's rules? Don't work nor eat there. Patronize businesses that are smoke-free.

here here

All of the whining about this I've seen in tbhis from the media is from people who (at best) wish to send anyone of Asian descent back where they came from or (at worst) shoot every Muslim in thew country. In this case, they don't have a lot of business complaining about being an oppressed minority.

Well, I don't really whine about it: I rant and rave and do everything but jam my burning cigarette in my opponent's eyeballs.

But on topic, if you meant Gary Bushell you should have just said so. Because especially in the US, many - nay, most! - anti-ban advocates are not Gary Bushell.

I don't happen to agree with that kind of xenophobic, authoritarian social conservatism myself. I don't even agree with state-owned press, especially if in your case it makes it seem like the only people who oppose smoking also oppose religious freedom (which would indeed be a position of hypocrisy).

Meh, my 2 cents? HA HA (a la Nelson from the Simpsons). I'm enjoying the clean club air.

Meh, my 2 cents? HA HA (a la Nelson from the Simpsons). I'm enjoying the clean club air.

I preffer the South park take on it. Some obese guy attacking people who smoke saying YOU'RE RUINING MY HEALTH. While then eating a load of hot dogs and burgers.

I preffer the South park take on it. Some obese guy attacking people who smoke saying YOU'RE RUINING MY HEALTH. While then eating a load of hot dogs and burgers.
Na. I'll keep my take on it. It's more fun. And it means I actually get to go out more without coming home feeling like an asthmatic.

Not that it's very likely to happen now, but there seems to be a big overlamp between people who are complaining about the possibility that they may be banned from smoking in pubs and restaurants, and people who spend all their time bitching about the government favouring minorities through positive discrimination. The smoking shouldn't be banned lobby are (as a rule) the people who spend all their time bitching about rights for whites, feminazis and a society that favours ethnic minorities.
More people don'ty smoke than do, chaps. Shut up whiningg about how minorities deserve no rights, or shut up whining about how your rights as a minority of cancer fans are being oppressed. This is an either/or situation: you can't have both.

Smoking bans are created by special, business and political interests that recieve money through funding, kick backs or political contributions from the insurance industry. It is absolutely mind boggling to see how easy it is to get an acedemic study that supports any conclusion one wishes to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. The people they get to jump on the bandwagon of these phoney causes get paid little to nothing, and do so for the right to whine and snivel, and a pat on the head. They come in all shapes, sizes and colors. They can be found in all geographical locations but prefer to breed in a thin band starting in southern california moving north to canada, to the east through europe. They make unsuitable pets as they bite the hand that feeds them and shit on the carpet.

Smoking bans are created by special, business and political interests that recieve money through funding, kick backs or political contributions from the insurance industry.
As opposed to having the tobacco industry's hand up their arse, working them like a glove puppet?

As opposed to having the tobacco industry's hand up their arse, working them like a glove puppet?
Thanks...I was writing a longwinded post in response, but this sums it up nicely.

As long as people like Santa Barbara can't smoke around me, I'm content:) Oh yeah, and Melkor gets bitchy too when he can't have a smoke. I like it when he's bitchy. Mmmmm. Vanilla mint.

Thanks...I was writing a longwinded post in response, but this sums it up nicely.

As long as people like Santa Barbara can't smoke around me, I'm content:) Oh yeah, and Melkor gets bitchy too when he can't have a smoke. I like it when he's bitchy. Mmmmm. Vanilla mint.

Actually a smoking ban won't really prevent me from smoking around you, I'll just be a criminal when I do. I mean it's against the law to have sex in public but since when does that ever stop anyone?

As opposed to having the tobacco industry's hand up their arse, working them like a glove puppet?

Nope, the tobacco industry is prevented from this by their settlement with the states, which we now know was won based on falsified testimony by their star witness Mr/Dr Jeffery Wigland, a digruntled employee seeking revenge because his project was terminated and he was dismissed.

Actually a smoking ban won't really prevent me from smoking around you, I'll just be a criminal when I do. I mean it's against the law to have sex in public but since when does that ever stop anyone?
How's about you do the later and not the former? I'll aid and abet you but once in your crime. Choose wisely. Should I show you my tongue in order to help you choose?

here here
Where? Where?!?

Actually a smoking ban won't really prevent me from smoking around you, I'll just be a criminal when I do. I mean it's against the law to have sex in public but since when does that ever stop anyone?
Duhduhduhduh, breaking the law, breaking the law...
I smoke almost everywhere, anytime. http://www.smileyville.com/images/evil/sasmokin.gif

(And I'm more than just bitchy when I'm on a nicotine low! Damn drug addicts)

The only way I'd stop smoking cold turkey would be if the girl of my life were a non-smoker. Right now, she's non-existant...

As a part-time barman for two years, I'll say this: smoking sucks. Ban it on all business premises.Agreed.

That said, I sure as hell hope my local pub won't ban smoking any time soon.

I'm curious though. If some sort of ban goes through, should it be legal for - say a pub owner - to post warnings that his pub's a smoking area, and only take on staff that smoke?

A Bill allowing smoking to continue in private clubs and pubs which do not serve food sounds a good compramise to me.

But working in a pub when you dislike smoke is like working in a fun fair if you hate noise and kids.

What some of the pubs in Edmonton are doing (where there is a total ban) is parking buses outside and letting patrons smoke there. No one is sure if it's legal or not yet:)

We've got a smoking ban in place - hasn't brought about the end of civilisation or civil rights, just made the place smell nicer, cleaner air indoors :) Same story in Ireland, as far as I'm aware.

Should be up to the pub/resturant in my opinion. Some people want to go to the pub smoke and drink and enjoy that atmoshphere and I think that should definatly be legal to do.

If enough people really care for it that much surely more and more places will adopt full non smoking, but an out right ban takes away the choice for one group entirely.
as upposed to the rights of people who dont smoke and dont seem to want . . .get this . . .a lungful of carcenogens as they eat

as upposed to the rights of people who dont smoke and dont seem to want . . .get this . . .a lungful of carcenogens as they eat

the people who don't want to smoke have a large choices of non smoking places to go to (if outrightly banned) a smoker will have no choice.

Smoking bans are created by special, business and political interests that recieve money through funding, kick backs or political contributions from the insurance industry. It is absolutely mind boggling to see how easy it is to get an acedemic study that supports any conclusion one wishes to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. The people they get to jump on the bandwagon of these phoney causes get paid little to nothing, and do so for the right to whine and snivel, and a pat on the head. They come in all shapes, sizes and colors. They can be found in all geographical locations but prefer to breed in a thin band starting in southern california moving north to canada, to the east through europe. They make unsuitable pets as they bite the hand that feeds them and shit on the carpet.


so ur sayin that companies who make smokes dont give kickbacks to the government????? how stupid r u? dont you know that in canada the main reason that smoking hasn't been baned outright is that it creats revenue for the government. and you think that the surgeon general's report and all the studies that follow have all been faked so that someone gets morew monney???? how bout the fact that cigeretts containt the same stuff that sidewalks to (eg. tar) and even bits of uranium????? and you dont think they harm anyone?????????????? im sorry but i cant agree with anything that you said right there cept. the part about Canada being non-smoking

the people who don't want to smoke have a large choices of non smoking places to go to (if outrightly banned) a smoker will have no choice.
smokers can go outside . . . . .. though you are right . . its just that as a non-smoker igotta say eatin next to someone who is somking is NOT FUN.

Elgesh']We've got a smoking ban in place - hasn't brought about the end of civilisation or civil rights, just made the place smell nicer, cleaner air indoors :) Same story in Ireland, as far as I'm aware.

Ah but some day you will wake up and realize that they are now going to start banning something you want to do, or even better start your own business and suddenly realize that you have no right to run your business in a manner that you see fit, because only the government can tell you how you can run your own business. Remember, increasing the insurance industry profits outweigh the rights of the individual as they pay more taxes!

Elgesh']We've got a smoking ban in place - hasn't brought about the end of civilisation or civil rights, just made the place smell nicer, cleaner air indoors :) Same story in Ireland, as far as I'm aware.
same story in Canada to (or ontario at least)

Ah but some day you will wake up and realize that they are now going to start banning something you want to do, or even better start your own business and suddenly realize that you have no right to run your business in a manner that you see fit, because only the government can tell you how you can run your own business. Remember, increasing the insurance industry profits outweigh the rights of the individual as they pay more taxes!
um im pretty sure that the governments making more off companies that make smokes (who pay ALOT of tax) than they are off insurance companies (who pay the regular amout of tax)

so ur sayin that companies who make smokes dont give kickbacks to the government????? how stupid r u?

Obviously not nearly as stupid as you. Arrogant little bitch.

The only way I'd stop smoking cold turkey would be if the girl of my life were a non-smoker. Right now, she's non-existant...
Maybe you'd have better luck if you didn't smell like an ashtray?

Similized: apparently private clubs will be perfectly entitled to insist on cancer, but only because they're not open to anybody who walks in off the street.

(What doesn't seem to be clear is that I find members of a minority -smokers- who normally find the matter of governmental compensation for the majority pissing on minorities offensive PC nonsense complaining about this a tad offensive.)

Obviously not nearly as stupid as you. Arrogant little bitch.
um great personal remark (sry i started that) but u havn't answerd my question o and btw its bastard not bitch

Ah but some day you will wake up and realize that they are now going to start banning something you want to do, or even better start your own business and suddenly realize that you have no right to run your business in a manner that you see fit, because only the government can tell you how you can run your own business. Remember, increasing the insurance industry profits outweigh the rights of the individual as they pay more taxes!
Any examples you can cite besides smoking?

Any examples you can cite besides smoking?

The idea of refusing healthcare to the obese comes to mind.

Not that it's very likely to happen now, but there seems to be a big overlamp between people who are complaining about the possibility that they may be banned from smoking in pubs and restaurants, and people who spend all their time bitching about the government favouring minorities through positive discrimination. The smoking shouldn't be banned lobby are (as a rule) the people who spend all their time bitching about rights for whites, feminazis and a society that favours ethnic minorities.
More people don'ty smoke than do, chaps. Shut up whiningg about how minorities deserve no rights, or shut up whining about how your rights as a minority of cancer fans are being oppressed. This is an either/or situation: you can't have both.No. Why should smokers have the right to hurt my lungs and possibly kill me through second hand smoke. That, in my opinion, qualifies as assault with a deadly weapon.

Ah but some day you will wake up and realize that they are now going to start banning something you want to do, or even better start your own business and suddenly realize that you have no right to run your business in a manner that you see fit, because only the government can tell you how you can run your own business. Remember, increasing the insurance industry profits outweigh the rights of the individual as they pay more taxes!

I think that's unneccessarily alarmist :) Smoking harms the health of the individual and all around him, depreciates furnishings, and buggers up food/drink outlets. Stopping a civil wrong is one of the things we have governments _for_!

It's funny how clubs that have banned smoking get the problem that instead of smelling smoke it all smells of sweat :D

No. Why should smokers have the right to hurt my lungs and possibly kill me through second hand smoke. That, in my opinion, qualifies as assault with a deadly weapon.

The only argument I've seen that I find convincing is a non smoker eating a meal having smokers near them.
But as for being "damaged" by secound hand smoke when you go to a club or pub? Its up to the landlord if he find it acceptable if he does then you either put up with it or find a place that meets your criteria.

I couldn't go to a gig and complain the loud music is damaging my ears so why can you complain in a pub or club with no food that someone elses smoke is "damaging" you.

I really don't have a strong opinion about cigarettes except that I hate dealing blackjack to five chain-smokers at once. :(

Oh, and as a clown I often walk around with a seltzer bottle and when I see smoke... :D

The only argument I've seen that I find convincing is a non smoker eating a meal having smokers near them.
But as for being "damaged" by secound hand smoke when you go to a club or pub? Its up to the landlord if he find it acceptable if he does then you either put up with it or find a place that meets your criteria.

I couldn't go to a gig and complain the loud music is damaging my ears so why can you complain in a pub or club with no food that someone elses smoke is "damaging" you.

It's health damaging! This isn't a question of infringing civil rights, it's about enforcing them - my right not to be adversely affected by the actions of others.

edited: away some dross :)

Elgesh']
This isn't a question of infringing civil rights, it's about enforcing them - my right not to be adversely affected by the actions of others.

I think your right is still upheld by the fact we have many resturants and pubs all over the country who have banned smoking on its premesis.

The only argument I've seen that I find convincing is a non smoker eating a meal having smokers near them.
But as for being "damaged" by secound hand smoke when you go to a club or pub? Its up to the landlord if he find it acceptable if he does then you either put up with it or find a place that meets your criteria.

I couldn't go to a gig and complain the loud music is damaging my ears so why can you complain in a pub or club with no food that someone elses smoke is "damaging" you.
I don't go to clubs are pubs. I walk down the street, go into a park, and there are smokers. My next door neighbor smokes right outside my house. I'm not sure if you live in the US, but it's everywhere.

I think your right is still upheld by the fact we have many resturants and pubs all over the country who have banned smoking on its premesis.

Well, I'm not sure which country we're talking about, but let's assume that that's true :) I still don't see why someone would be against the extension of civil rights...?

There's nothing worse than an insufferable bore who keeps bludgeoning you with his conviction that he's right, but let's run that risk! I just find it impossible to justify the right of someone to hurt those around him or her simply because it's a habit of theirs.

The only argument I've seen that I find convincing is a non smoker eating a meal having smokers near them.
But as for being "damaged" by secound hand smoke when you go to a club or pub? Its up to the landlord if he find it acceptable if he does then you either put up with it or find a place that meets your criteria.

I couldn't go to a gig and complain the loud music is damaging my ears so why can you complain in a pub or club with no food that someone elses smoke is "damaging" you.

ok in sayin that theres to debatable issuesd. first of loud music doesn't kill you or require lengthy hospitalisation and extreme medical bills (except in extreme cases). secondly what ur saying means that smokers have the right to go anywhere but non-smokers are -in essence- baned from anywhere that permits smoking as smokers are not forced to smoke as they eat wheras non-smokers are forced to breath

Elgesh']Well, I'm not sure which country we're talking about, but let's assume that that's true :) I still don't see why someone would be against the extension of civil rights...?

There's nothing worse than an insufferable bore who keeps bludgeoning you with his conviction that he's right, but let's run that risk! I just find it impossible to justify the right of someone to hurt those around him or her simply because it's a habit of theirs.

Ah, I guess I think a bunch of smokers should be allowed to go to atleast some clubs and smoke simple. I agree with you in that most places should be smoke free and we should all have the right not to be forced to put up with unwanted secound hand smoke.

Ah, I guess I think a bunch of smokers should be allowed to go to atleast some clubs and smoke simple. I agree with you in that most places should be smoke free and we should all have the right not to be forced to put up with unwanted secound hand smoke.

I don't know how you solve this problem of wanting to stop a harmful substance affecting your people when it's already a widely accepted and availalbe part of your culture.

You can't do it in a generation, that'd be daft (and over-optimistic!). I think the most sensible way to do it is by increasing restrictions on it gradually. In 100 years time, all else being equal, the problem may well have effectively solved itself; incremental restrictions is probably the most sensible way forward, yeah. It's only the nature of these restrictions you need to debate, as we've done!

Maybe you'd have better luck if you didn't smell like an ashtray?
(...)
I don't think that's the real problem - getting close enough to talk to the girl is more like it... With or without smoke in the room :p

I don't think that's the real problem - getting close enough to talk to the girl is more like it... With or without smoke in the room :p
lol :D

I couldn't go to a gig and complain the loud music is damaging my ears so why can you complain in a pub or club with no food that someone elses smoke is "damaging" you.
Tinnitus won't give you cancer.

The idea of refusing healthcare to the obese comes to mind.
When it actually happens, then you can complain about it. In the meantime, this is a scare story the Torygraph are bandying about.

Look... if you don't like smoke, don't go into the resteraunts/pubs that allow it.
Since non-smokers are the majority, if enough of the non-smokers were to do that, then the owners would see such a drop off in business they coudln't go smoke free fast enough.

But no, you don't want to do that... you want to legislate it.

Rather than allow the market set up a situation where roughly 80% of the businesses are smoke free and 20% allow smoking (based on rough % of smoking population), you would impose your will on 100% of the business.

Really big of you.

Look... if you don't like smoke, don't go into the resteraunts/pubs that allow it.
Since non-smokers are the majority, if enough of the non-smokers were to do that, then the owners would see such a drop off in business they coudln't go smoke free fast enough.

But no, you don't want to do that... you want to legislate it.

Rather than allow the market set up a situation where roughly 80% of the businesses are smoke free and 20% allow smoking (based on rough % of smoking population), you would impose your will on 100% of the business.

Really big of you.

<Sighs> 'The market' is not the answer to the world's woes anymore than legislation is. In this case, where you're dealing with an entrenched social factor which nonetheless needs to be removed - gradually, see my post above - on grounds of health, legislation is far more appropriate and effective.

It's not a question of 'being big', it's a question of civil rights and public health, ergo, legislation :)

Elgesh']<Sighs> 'The market' is not the answer to the world's woes anymore than legislation is. In this case, where you're dealing with an entrenched social factor which nonetheless needs to be removed - gradually, see my post above - on grounds of health, legislation is far more appropriate and effective.

It's not a question of 'being big', it's a question of civil rights and public health, ergo, legislation :)
i agree that that would be the best solution all round