NationStates Jolt Archive

And if Christmas tree farming caused cancer then I say ban it in restaurants and bars!! Although I don't mind if they go outside to do it.
:D
I cannot support the idea that the ban is to protect workers. Nobody is forcing them to work as waitstaff/barstaff. If you do not like your job - go work somewhere that smoke is not an issue.
And if you don't like working while exposed to radiation, go work somewhere else. *Removes all safeguards to reduce costs.*

And if you don't like working with toxic fumes, go work somewhere else.
*Removes all safeguards to reduce costs.*

And if you don't like working in [hazardous work environment], go work somewhere else.
*Removes all safeguards to reduce costs.*

For some reason this line of arguments don't work...

It amazes me that people are so scared of smoking. They thing it is a literal cloud of death hovering above them. If they only want to complain about the smell then let them and carry on smoking. But the health risks are minimal. If you live by a main road, or drive in cities every day you are inhaling more harmful substances than going to a smokey pub. Try to ban cars. Drivers are selfish - an exhaust pipe is bigger than 20 cigarettes put together,and goes for more that 3 minutes, and in Britain there are 33million of the things.

....despite the changes in cars to make them more environmentally friendly, give out less pollutants and generally be cleaner than they were?

Like, unleaded petrol for example?

That's the point. You can do whatever it is you like in the privacy of your own home - but where you affect other people, that ceases to be your choice alone.

True it is not the smokers choice alone it is also the choice of nonsmokers to patronize businesses that allow smoking.

I have no problem with a smoking ban in public places, in fact I support such a ban. It is the ban on private business that confuses me. I am not quite sure if I am against the ban but it does seem odd to me.

Winston Churchill smoked al the time and lived into his 90's. George Burns Smoked and lived to 100. Jim Fix - marathon runner and health enthusiast - died of a heart attack during a marathon.

It amazes me that people are so scared of smoking. They thing it is a literal cloud of death hovering above them. If they only want to complain about the smell then let them and carry on smoking. But the health risks are minimal. If you live by a main road, or drive in cities every day you are inhaling more harmful substances than going to a smokey pub. Try to ban cars. Drivers are selfish - an exhaust pipe is bigger than 20 cigarettes put together,and goes for more that 3 minutes, and in Britain there are 33million of the things.

But non-smokers will say that driving doesn't hurt othes because they do it.Smoking harms people because they don't do it.

As long as you admit that there is a health risk even though you are diminishing the actual risk, I'll still let that slide.

Increased risk is just that, noone said that smokign is a garunteed death sentence. My great grandfather lives into his late 90's and he smoked a pipe since he was 13 years old, but I have a bit more sense than to use that as an example as to how smoking tobacco is harmless.

People are also pushing to cut down car emmissions and automobiles are actually needed for everyday life for the vast majority of people in industrialized nations.

Winston Churchill smoked al the time and lived into his 90's. George Burns Smoked and lived to 100. Jim Fix - marathon runner and health enthusiast - died of a heart attack during a marathon.



I hate this argument. No-one is saying smoking is an automatic ticket to cancer. All they are saying is that it increases your risk

It amazes me that people are so scared of smoking.

It amazes me that some smokers make such a huge fuzz about something that's really only common curtesy...

If someone can provide me with evidence that the ban encourages MORE businesses to open and creates more jobs - feel free.

a couple of examples of improved sales.

http://www.hooknortonbrewery.co.uk/news_2007/Marston_Magic/marston_magic.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/672/smoking_bans_are_good_for_business.html

That's the point. You can do whatever it is you like in the privacy of your own home - but where you affect other people, that ceases to be your choice alone.

:D

And if you don't like working while exposed to radiation, go work somewhere else. *Removes all safeguards to reduce costs.*

And if you don't like working with toxic fumes, go work somewhere else.
*Removes all safeguards to reduce costs.*

And if you don't like working in [hazardous work environment], go work somewhere else.
*Removes all safeguards to reduce costs.*

For some reason this line of arguments don't work...

And there is that ol' "slippery slope"

Remove safeguards to reduce costs? - ok let's! Why do we even have OSHA? Lets make every work environment as dangerous as possible, if you cant hang with toxic fumes, radiation, roving crocodiles and random gunfire you dont deserve to work at all

It amazes me that some smokers make such a huge fuzz about something that's really only common curtesy...

Exactly. I purposely avoided having my smoke invade the terriroty of others who didn't smoke. There are quite a few smokers who will do the samebut there are those who are really dickish.

My wife has asthma and was havign a hard time breathing around someone who sat on the same bench as us in the mall. She started coughing and the guy acted as if she was being a bitch to him and exxagerating her cough and with a "yeah right" and literally stormed off.

i have mixed feelings on this. as a non smoker i do like to be able to breath fresh air. but i have always been able to do this. i use common sense and i don't stay in smoke filled rooms. if i stay in a place that has a few people smoking it is my own choice.

it seems that common sense is going away and government legislation is having to replace it.

you cant blame any one particular party on this. they all seem to have a need to hold the hands of citizens and let us know what is good and bad for us.

why cant we just go back to invading foreign countries and telling them what is good and bad.

It amazes me that some smokers make such a huge fuzz about something that's really only common curtesy...

Maybe I am in the minority but every smoker I know will put out their cigarette if it is bothering someone or not even light up if they are around nonsmokers.

I hate this argument. No-one is saying smoking is an automatic ticket to cancer. All they are saying is that it increases your risk

It seems everything increases your risk of cancer. Talc increases your chance of cancer and it is in baby powder.

Exactly. I purposely avoided having my smoke invade the terriroty of others who didn't smoke. There are quite a few smokers who will do the samebut there are those who are really dickish.

My wife has asthma and was havign a hard time breathing around someone who sat on the same bench as us in the mall. She started coughing and the guy acted as if she was being a bitch to him and exxagerating her cough and with a "yeah right" and literally stormed off.

You can't smoke in malls. Quit making things up.

Not at the scaremongering rate that the anti-smoking lobby would have us beleive (as they have already admitted in Britain). Just like road safet campaign group 'BRAKE' getting the word accident removed from the highway code and trying to stop people smoking whilst driving.

1931 - 2million cars on the roads, 7000 deaths.

2006 - 33million cars, 3250 deaths.

Life can sometimes be like a history essay. You spend the first 20% of the time getting 80% of the marks and the other 80% getting the last 20% of the marks. So much effort for so little gain can be worth it in an exam situation but in real life - there is not enough time. Enjoy life while you can. Don't spend it on a campaign to direct others behaviour because it as slight effects on you. If you do you aste your life and are undeserving of such a gift.


As long as you don't deny that subjecting others to your second-hand smoke increases their risk of gettign smoke related diseases. The amount of risk is debateable sure, but I will continue to mold reality into something that makes me happy and you can do the same for yourself. I don't see a problem, especially since your side is losing. :D

a couple of examples of improved sales.

http://www.hooknortonbrewery.co.uk/news_2007/Marston_Magic/marston_magic.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/672/smoking_bans_are_good_for_business.html


And I provided 4 more links for the guy but it was ignored. I think he is only here to provide emotionallycharged arguments so he can continue to make the lives of non-smokers miserable.

You can't smoke in malls. Quit making things up.

Las Vegas is not VA.

You can't smoke in malls. Quit making things up.

Well I live in...

Las Vegas is not VA.

errr, yeah. Although I dunno if the latest smokign ban stopped that here or not as I haven't been to the mall since.

I don't see a problem, especially since your side is losing.

I can still smoke in bars.

Las Vegas is not VA.

My bad, you can smoke anywhere in Vegas. God bless Las Vegas. The only place in the world with most freedom.

'Increased risk' is a phrase I detest. To completely decrease risk - live in a bubble. Increased risk is an Americanism used by lawyers to earn money. It has now become a buzz word for every fundamentalist health group with an agenda.

Life is a risk. The other day a window cleaner in Wigan collapsed and drowned in his bucket of water. Does a windw cleaner having a bucket of water propose an increased risk? I passed a scrap yard in Skem today - thousands of cars written off through accidents - driving is an increased risk to your health. The smoking argument is a smoke screen.Religion is no longer the opiate of the people. Public health is.What else can our poloticians keep us busy with whilst they destroy the democracy we once held so dear.

The window cleaner fell into his bucket of water. Not an appropriate use of the water really. If cigarettes are used as intended they increase your risk.

I have nothing against you wanting to live your life to the fullest and if that means you want to take risks don't let me stop you but i'd prefer if your risks didn't affect me.

I can still smoke in bars.


My point was that the number of bars and restaurants that one can smoke in is decreasing. :p

My bad, you can smoke anywhere in Vegas. God bless Las Vegas. The only place in the world with most freedom.

Not anymore. God blessed us even more.

Oh, and I found this: - Some highlights...

The introduction of smoke-free hospitality venues in Norway.
Impact on revenues, frequency of patronage, satisfaction and compliance
After 16 years of exceptions from §6 of the Act relating to prevention of the harmful
effects of tobacco, the so-called Tobacco Act, a smoke-free regime was introduced at
all hospitality venues from 1 June 2004. The previous regulations regarding smokefree
areas in bars, pubs, cafés and restaurants were thereby superseded by an absolute
ban on smoking indoors. The authorities' most important reason for revoking the
exception was to afford employees in the hospitality industry the same protection
against passive smoking as other employees had had since §6 of the Tobacco Act
came into effect in 1988.
6.2.2 Changes in the revenues of pubs/bars
During the 12-month pre-ban period (from May 2003 up to and including April
2004), according to Statistics Norway, MNOK 882.6 in VAT were paid by
pubs/bars. During the 12-month post-ban period (from July 2004 up to and
including June 2005), reported VAT came to MNOK 844.2. The reduction of 4.3%
in paid VAT harmonises with the decline shown when we studied the breweries'
figures on the sale of beer to the hospitality industry.
As mentioned, the breweries reported the biggest decline in sales during the coldest
season. On this basis, it is natural to suppose that any effect of the ban would be
strongest in the regions of the country with the coldest climate. This does not appear to be the case. If we combine data for Nordland, Troms and Finnmark counties,
VAT payments from pubs/bars increased by 2.3%. In the supposedly warmest,
sunniest counties, e.g. Vestfold, Telemark, Aust-Agder and Vest-Agder, the decline
totalled 1.9%. This may be due to periodic differences in climatic conditions (cf.
Chapter 6.4).
The greatest decline in sales was registered in Møre & Romsdal County (34%),
followed by Finnmark County (18.7%), Rogaland County (15.5%) and Oslo (13.1%).
Østfold County registered an increase of no less than 42%, Akershus County an
increase of 35% and Nordland County saw an increase of 12.1% in the VAT paid.
The changes were less than +/- 10% in the other counties. The county-specific
effects do not appear to reflect any systematic regional tendency, since opposite sales
trends can be observed in many neighbouring counties. Representatives of Statistics
Norway contend that when statistics are broken down to the county level, they
become vulnerable to the lack of compliance with deadlines for reporting VAT. This
may possibly be one cause of the random fluctuations. There is a need for more
comprehensive surveys of county-specific fluctuations.
6.2.3 Sales in restaurants
The café and restaurant segment registered a decrease in reported VAT of a mere
0.5%. As indicated by Figure 4, sales in this industry were significantly higher than in
pubs and bars, owing to more units and additional earnings from the sale of food.
Reported VAT before and after the ban were NOK 18.3 billion and NOK 18.2
billion, respectively. The changes during the period were small in all counties.
6.3.3 Changes in the patronage of pubs/bars
Figure 5 indicates that the hospitality industry's best customers, i.e. patrons who visit
pubs or bars more frequently than once a fortnight, diminished from 26% in 2003 to
23% in 2005. However, this decline is not significant at the 5% level, and may
therefore be a result of coincidences in the selection of the sample. The predominant
impression is that self-reported patronage has been stable over these years.
Figure 9 indicates that the number of bankruptcies in the hotel and restaurant
industry increased during the two first quarters after ban was introduced and then
subsequently diminished. Meanwhile, the increase occurred during a season in which
the number of bankruptcies has shown a rising tendency in previous years as well.
Accordingly, it is not clear whether the observed increase is related to the
introduction of smoke-free hospitality venues, or whether it is a natural seasonal
variation. Many other factors might also affect bankruptcy statistics, for example,
earlier periods of over-establishment, interest level, the local authorities' allocation
policy, level of indirect taxes, etc.
6.6.2 Results
Figure 10 shows that the employment rate in the hotel and restaurant industry has
seasonal variations. The number of employees was highest in Q2 and Q3, while Q1
and Q4 generally have fewer employees. A slight decrease in the number of
employees was observed in Q4 2004 compared with the same quarter in the two
preceding years. However, already in Q1 2005 and for the rest of that year, the
number of employees was back to the same level as in earlier years. It is difficult to
say whether the temporary dip can be related to the ban, whether it is ascribable to
other conditions that influence employment or whether it is ascribable to coincidence
in the selection of the sample in the Labour Market Survey.
12. Conclusion
The authorities' most important reason for banning smoking was to afford
employees in the hospitality industry the same protection against passive smoking as
other employees had had since §6 of the Tobacco Act came into effect in 1988.
Other evaluations have already shown that the air quality has improved significantly
for staff, and that this, in turn, has led to a reduction of respiratory problems and an
improved state of health (STAMI 2005, Hetland & Aarø 2004). Our survey also
indicates that patrons reported a dramatic improvement in air quality at hospitality
venues.
The most important objection against the ban was that the ban on smoking could
have negative economic consequences for the industry. Our investigation has shown
that the reported value-added tax (VAT) from the hospitality industry (restaurants,
pubs and bars) to county tax offices dropped by -0.8 per cent in the first 12 months
after the ban was introduced compared with same interval the year before. In the
restaurant segment of the industry, sales remained virtually unchanged (- 0.6%), while
typical taverns such as bars and pubs, which have significantly lower sales than the
restaurant industry, reported a somewhat higher downturn (- 4.4%). Self-reported
patronage from guests showed a high degree of stability. The bankruptcy statistics
and degree of employment show no major changes either. The ban does not seem to
have caused substantial economic losses for the hospitality industry as a whole.
Nonetheless, it cannot be ruled out that the ban on smoking has struck a special
segment of the industry.
The evaluation further demonstrated that before the ban smokers expressed a high
degree of intended compliance with the ban on smoking. After 18 months of smokefree
dining, a mere 2-3% of the guests had observed enforcement problems with the ban. Staff experienced fewer unpleasant incidents and better compliance with the
total ban of smoking than with smoke-free areas. The results indicate that smokers
complied with the scheme and that enforcement problems were small.
Prior to the ban, 69% and 55% of those who smoke on a daily basis thought that
smoke-free hospitality venues would reduce their satisfaction when patronising
pubs/bars and restaurants, but a mere 38% and 32%, respectively, reported an actual
reduction in satisfaction 18 months after the ban. Among non-smokers, 81% and
82%, respectively, reported a higher level of satisfaction with pubs/bars and
restaurants after the ban.
One year after the ban, no fewer than three of four
respondents stated that they would retain the scheme of smoke-free hospitality
venues if given a hypothetical choice. The results indicate that the ban did not turn
out to be as bad as smokers had initially feared. This must be seen in the light of
large parts of the hospitality industry having paved the way for outdoor smoking by
several types of initiatives to raise the level of satisfaction.
Employees
pointed out that the advantages of the ban included easier cleaning, work clothes that
do not reek of smoke, a better state of health and better air quality.
http://www.sirus.no/cwobjekter%5CSIRUSskrifter0206eng.pdf

That's one example that's more than "just" a newsclip...

It seems everything increases your risk of cancer. Talc increases your chance of cancer and it is in baby powder.

To the same extent?

My point was that the number of bars and restaurants that one can smoke in is decreasing.

Not in VA. A state that has voted it down twice.

lung cancer, skin cancer and ovarian cancer

Do you have a source?

http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/63/1/4

To the same extent?

lung cancer, skin cancer and ovarian cancer

Maybe I am in the minority but every smoker I know will put out their cigarette if it is bothering someone or not even light up if they are around nonsmokers.Same here. If my to-be mother inlaw is in the pub with us I know she has asthma and so if I want to smoke and stay in the conversation I stand by the chimney (we always sit by the fire - it is never lit)and ensure my smoke mostly goes up said chimney, and always blow my smoke away from the party. If the smoke in a pub bothers her she makes a point about it, and I put it out or move further away. So non-smokers complaining about smokers 20 or so feet away seems a trifle pathetic.
Wow, you guys are nice and considerate :)

...

...so tell me again why you won't sacrifice your comfort and smoke outside instead of increasing the risk of health problems for other people? I mean, since you won't light up if someone asks you not to?
'Increased risk' is a phrase I detest.
Go ask your doctor about the phrase :)

Not in VA. A state that has voted it down twice.

Over all though, which is nice. It's also nice that smoking in general is falling out of favor fast so these conversations will probably be moot in a not too distant future.

The act of moving 10 feet away is easier than going outside. This woman gets attacks by being in the same room as a rabbit,she don't mind me smoking the way I do in her presence. Why won't you sacrifice your comfort and allow smoking in designated areas to avoid the increased health risks of people having to go outside in winter (I am 26 and have arthritis in one hand - I smoke with the other but the damp makes me hurt.)

The health risks of going outside in winter? Which of these are worse than increased risk of cancer, etc

Pain doesn't count as a health risk. The cold isn't accelerating the progression of your arthritis. It is just exacerbating it.

May I ask what is it in particular about smoking you enjoy?

Over all though, which is nice. It's also nice that smoking in general is falling out of favor fast so these conversations will probably be moot in a not too distant future.

Then we all move on to removing more rights from people. Next it will alcohol being removed from bars, b/c people drive and wreck cars, get drunk and get into fights, or someone gets drunk and calls the bartender names. Is being cursed out at work a hazardous job?

I enjoy smoking b/c it pisses non-smokers off even if they don't even live in the same country as I do.

I meant it as a serious question thanks

As long as you don't deny that subjecting others to your second-hand smoke increases their risk of gettign smoke related diseases. The amount of risk is debateable sure, but I will continue to mold reality into something that makes me happy and you can do the same for yourself. I don't see a problem, especially since your side is losing. :D




And I provided 4 more links for the guy but it was ignored. I think he is only here to provide emotionallycharged arguments so he can continue to make the lives of non-smokers miserable.

I read an article that stated that the anti-smoking thing is becoming a vendetta. Gloating is certainly part of that.

Anti-smokers only seem to make the lives of smokers miserable to make a world that is entirely comfortable for them where they do not have to compromise for others. Something they are requiring smokers to do (with litte evidence to support their claims). That is the essence of selfishness.

The 4 links were looked at but ignored. Propoganda would have me beleiving that all Jews where evil in 1940's Germany.

Try www.forestonline.org - propoganda that does not demonise.

- LOL! The Zagat survey is propaganda?

- And don't get yoru panties in a bunch, I was just having fun with you because I think you are going overboard with your arguments and I felt the discourse could be lightened up a bit. Besides, gloating != vendetta, sugar britches.

- Oh noes, non-smokers are making it miserable for smokers by not filling bar and restaurant air with carcinogenic smoke! Those bastards!

- How is it compromising with non-smokers to say "if you don't like it that all bars and restaurants are filled with smoke then just don't go there."? Answer: It isn't. - Bars and Restaurants are there to serve drinks and food. They weren't built/opened to give people a place to smoke. Thats what Cigar stores are for.

The health risks of going outside in winter? Which of these are worse than increased risk of cancer, etc

Pain doesn't count as a health risk. The cold isn't accelerating the progression of your arthritis. It is just exacerbating it.

May I ask what is it in particular about smoking you enjoy?

I enjoy smoking b/c it pisses non-smokers off even if they don't even live in the same country as I do.

The act of moving 10 feet away is easier than going outside. This woman gets attacks by being in the same room as a rabbit,she don't mind me smoking the way I do in her presence. Why won't you sacrifice your comfort and allow smoking in designated areas to avoid the increased health risks of people having to go outside in winter (I am 26 and have arthritis in one hand - I smoke with the other but the damp makes me hurt.)
That's sweet. But that's what we already have: no smoking areas, air con, open windows, and guess what? I'm still exposed to second hand smoke. And no, I'm not prepared to expose myself to it when I don't have to for your arthritis, that simply isn't a risk to your health.

Then go to a different bar. One that doesn't allow smoking.

I'm still waiting for your source about the talc thing by the way

That's sweet. But that's what we already have: no smoking areas, air con, open windows, and guess what? I'm still exposed to second hand smoke. And no, I'm not prepared to expose myself to it when I don't have to for your arthritis, that simply isn't a risk to your health.

Then go to a different bar. One that doesn't allow smoking.

Then we all move on to removing more rights from people. Next it will alcohol being removed from bars, b/c people drive and wreck cars, get drunk and get into fights, or someone gets drunk and calls the bartender names. Is being cursed out at work a hazardous job?
Slippery slope, anyone?

Then we all move on to removing more rights from people. Next it will alcohol being removed from bars, b/c people drive and wreck cars, get drunk and get into fights, or someone gets drunk and calls the bartender names. Is being cursed out at work a hazardous job?

Increasing the risk of cancer in others is a right?


There are already laws that punish people for driving drunk or assaulting others.

No, being cursed out at work isn't hazardous and the bartender can make the beligerant customer leave or have him removed.

Then go to a different bar. One that doesn't allow smoking.
Isn't one near where I live. Plus, I'm not compromising anyone's health. Why should it be I who has to put out, either by risking my health, or having to drive or be driven somewhere a way away?

I enjoy smoking b/c it pisses non-smokers off even if they don't even live in the same country as I do.

Ah. The mind of a child reveals itself.

The act of moving 10 feet away is easier than going outside. This woman gets attacks by being in the same room as a rabbit,she don't mind me smoking the way I do in her presence. Why won't you sacrifice your comfort and allow smoking in designated areas to avoid the increased health risks of people having to go outside in winter (I am 26 and have arthritis in one hand - I smoke with the other but the damp makes me hurt.)
Me? Don't worry about me. Or that woman. You still don't adress the people who have to work in that environment. You don't adress them at all (except pehaps to say that they don't have to work there - which is a bad argument) - so I ask you again: If you're so selfless and you're willing to not light up around non-smokers, why aren't you willing to be that selfless around the workers, the people who will suffer the risk of health problems - not simply be inconvenienced or annoyed, but possibly may suffer real and terminal problems - when it's easy and relatively painless for you to go outside?

Slippery slope, anyone?

The more bans and restrictions you put on people just creates more slippery slopes. People love to bitch about what other people are doing. It will never stop.

Isn't one near where I live. Plus, I'm not compromising anyone's health. Why should it be I who has to put out, either by risking my health, or having to drive or be driven somewhere a way away?

I agree, and I don't mind repeating myself: When it's the smoker that increases the risks, it's the smoker who will have to sacrifice the lack of comfort that three to five minutes outside entails.

Ah. The mind of a child reveals itself.

Ah, come on that was funny. Someone had to throw a joke in there somewhere.

Ah, come on that was funny. Someone had to throw a joke in there somewhere.

Ok so tell me what is it that gives you enjoyment from smoking?

Wow, you guys are nice and considerate :)

...

...so tell me again why you won't sacrifice your comfort and smoke outside instead of increasing the risk of health problems for other people? I mean, since you won't light up if someone asks you not to?

Go ask your doctor about the phrase :)

Not a smoker so I do not need to be asked not to light up

Me? Don't worry about me. Or that woman. You still don't adress the people who have to work in that environment. You don't adress them at all (except pehaps to say that they don't have to work there - which is a bad argument) - so I ask you again: If you're so selfless and you're willing to not light up around non-smokers, why aren't you willing to be that selfless around the workers, the people who will suffer the risk of health problems - not simply be inconvenienced or annoyed, but possibly may suffer real and terminal problems - when it's easy and relatively painless for you to go outside?

Why is not working there a bad argument. People quit jobs they don't like all the time. I hated cooking in a kitchen b/c it was hot as hell, but I didn't make them cook everything on low heat. I just quit and got a different job. Like working in a bar is an awesome job. You have to put up with different things at different jobs. Thats the way it is.

There is nothing better than drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette. There is just something about the combination. I don't know the scientific answer to that, all that it makes me happy. And is what life is all about.

Is it the action of smoking or more of a chemical thing would you say?

Ok so tell me what is it that gives you enjoyment from smoking?

There is nothing better than drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette. There is just something about the combination. I don't know the scientific answer to that, all that it makes me happy. And that is what life is all about.

I read an article that stated that the anti-smoking thing is becoming a vendetta. Gloating is certainly part of that.

Anti-smokers only seem to make the lives of smokers miserable to make a world that is entirely comfortable for them where they do not have to compromise for others. Something they are requiring smokers to do (with litte evidence to support their claims). That is the essence of selfishness.

The 4 links were looked at but ignored. Propoganda would have me beleiving that all Jews where evil in 1940's Germany.

Try www.forestonline.org - propoganda that does not demonise.translation: "Sumamba Buwhan pwned me."
:p

Then go to a different bar. One that doesn't allow smoking. or you smokers can light up outside... 20 ft away. simple.

The more bans and restrictions you put on people just creates more slippery slopes. People love to bitch about what other people are doing. It will never stop.
Wrong. This ban isn't about people bitching about what other people do. That's not the logic behind it. Otherwise, this thread would be "smokers really annoy me", not debating the ban. The ban has been brought about on the basis of scientific evidence that passive smoking is harmful, and that it is in the public interest in order to minimise the amount of people unnecessarily exposed to it.

If more restrictions come in, it will be because of a proven need and a degree of public support - which this ban has in most jurisdictions - not because of this ban.

For me I would have to say both. Like when I'm driving its more of an action thing, but at work or partying its more chemical.

Ok well would you be open to compromising by using this stuff?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1713148,00.html

Is it the action of smoking or more of a chemical thing would you say?

For me I would have to say both. Like when I'm driving its more of an action thing, but at work or partying its more chemical.

Why is not working there a bad argument. People quit jobs they don't like all the time. I hated cooking in a kitchen b/c it was hot as hell, but I didn't make them cook everything on low heat. I just quit and got a different job. Like working in a bar is an awesome job. You have to put up with different things at different jobs. Thats the way it is.

Because it's not about not liking your job, it's about having the right to work in a healthy environment. Or rather, to not work in an unhealthy one.

I've said before, in every other career work safety and health is taken seriously and safeguards to prevent health risks are implemented - why not in the area of restaurants, bars and pubs when the only negative effect is that you have to stand outside for the few minutes it takes to smoke a cigarette?

Because it's not about not liking your job, it's about having the right to work in a healthy environment. Or rather, to not work in an unhealthy one.

I've said before, in every other career work safety and health is taken seriously and safeguards to prevent health risks are implemented - why not in the area of restaurants, bars and pubs when the only negative effect is that you have to stand outside for the few minutes it takes to smoke a cigarette?

All I'm saying is why can't there be bars where people can smoke? Everybody would know the risks involved with working there and going there to drink.

The last thing I want is even more processed tobacco. I usually smoke additive-free cigarettes when I can find them.

Why?

Ok well would you be open to compromising by using this stuff?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1713148,00.html

The last thing I want is even more processed tobacco. I usually smoke additive-free cigarettes when I can find them.

Why?

Why what?

Why what?

Why do you smoke additive free cigarettes when possible?

Sorry i've never been a big smoker so I don't know if there is a taste difference or something

All I'm saying is why can't there be bars where people can smoke? Everybody would know the risks involved with working there and going there to drink.
If there is no legislation, the pub owners won't dare impose a smoking ban, as I've said before. So besides the factors I've mentioned before, it's to protect the workers who would need to take the jobs simply to earn an income, who can't afford to prioritize their future health in favour of present cash.

It's to protect the weaker parties who would be more or less forced to work in unhealthy conditions - and needlessly so too, as the hassle smokers have to live with by stepping outside is negligible.

Maybe they could insitute a smoking license to bars. That way if they think that it brings in that many more customers, they can be a smoking bar if they buy the license (sort of like having a liquor license) and then clearly advertise it. It would be an interesting experiment at least.

The additives they put in cigarettes account for a portion of the health risks.

Smoking isn't good for you by any stretch of the imagination, mind, but without the additives is better than with.

Snus is 100x safer than normal cigarettes apparently

Why do you smoke additive free cigarettes when possible?

Sorry i've never been a big smoker so I don't know if there is a taste difference or something

The additives they put in cigarettes account for a portion of the health risks.

Smoking isn't good for you by any stretch of the imagination, mind, but without the additives is better than with.

Snus? Can't say I've heard of that one.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1713148,00.html

Snus is 100x safer than normal cigarettes apparently

Snus? Can't say I've heard of that one.

Link (http://www.nbc4.com/news/13336833/detail.html)

So there you have it. Our "Father knows best" Government takes another step in the progressively more intrusive control of Government in people's lives.

Lawl Nazi America is opressing me help.

Snus? Can't say I've heard of that one.

I saw this in the report I posted...
The evaluation has shown that since the ban, the hospitality industry has become a sales channel for snus (a Scandinavian type of moist smokeless tobacco) and an arena
for snus use. It is likely that the ban has accelerated the use of snus here in Norway.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1713148,00.html

Ah, see, to my knowledge they haven't done that here yet. Does seem to solve everybody's problem though.

Ah, see, to my knowledge they haven't done that here yet. Does seem to solve everybody's problem though.

Yeah but there doesn't seem to be any particular reason for it to be banned here while cigarettes are legal

Yeah but there doesn't seem to be any particular reason for it to be banned here while cigarettes are legal

True. I do have to say I think I'd prefer a cigarette to smokeless tobacco.

'Course, when I smoked, I also always went outside or, at the very least, sat at the far side of the restaurant from everybody else.

Most of the smokeless tobaccos contain more nicotine than cigarettes. A lot of the nicotine and other chemicals burn up. If I could find an 100% nicotine and chemical free cigarette I would smoke it.

Most of the smokeless tobaccos contain more nicotine than cigarettes. A lot of the nicotine and other chemicals burn up. If I could find an 100% nicotine and chemical free cigarette I would smoke it.

This isn't for smoking though. You just put it under your tongue. Thats why I asked whether you preferred the action of smoking or the effect. It contains more nicotine but is apparently a lot safer.

Most of the smokeless tobaccos contain more nicotine than cigarettes. A lot of the nicotine and other chemicals burn up. If I could find an 100% nicotine and chemical free cigarette I would smoke it.

Doesn't that leave only the rolling paper and glue? :p

Smokeless tobacco has always been huge in America going all the way back to chewing tobacco. I just prefer the taste of cigarettes.

Its a fair compromise though. Well the fairest possible.

Smokeless tobacco has always been huge in America going all the way back to chewing tobacco. I just prefer the taste of cigarettes.

Its a fair compromise though. Well the fairest possible.

No its not. I am free to purchase whatever tobacco product I want. I shouldn't have to buy smokeless tobacco b/c some people don't like cigarettes

Smokeless tobacco has always been huge in America going all the way back to chewing tobacco. I just prefer the taste of cigarettes.

That and our smokeless tobacco and snus are not the same thing.

Our smokeless tobacco has a much higher rate of mouth cancer, for starters.

No its not. I am free to purchase whatever tobacco product I want. I should have to buy smokeless tobacco b/c some people don't like cigarettes

You complained that everyone is trying to stop smokers to help their health. You wanted to make that choice yourself. Here's the answer

People don't like second hand smoke. Here's the answer again

You don't want to go outside to get your nicotine, etc. Third time in a row the answer is here.

As much as you claim non-smokers are uncompromising you are just the same

No its not. I am free to purchase whatever tobacco product I want. I shouldn't have to buy smokeless tobacco b/c some people don't like cigarettes

Smoke all you want to, just don't inflict it on others :)

You complained that everyone is trying to stop smokers to help their health. You wanted to make that choice yourself. Here's the answer

People don't like second hand smoke. Here's the answer again

You don't want to go outside to get your nicotine, etc. Third time in a row the answer is here.

As much as you claim non-smokers are uncompromising you are just the same

I have gone outside several times to smoke. In a non-smoking restaurant. If I am allowed to smoke inside I will. Also I have never been asked in a restaurant or bar to put my cigarette out. I probably would. The fact is a lot of nonsmokers don't mind or complain about cigarette smoke.

I have gone outside several times to smoke. In a non-smoking restaurant. If I am allowed to smoke inside I will. Also I have never been asked in a restaurant or bar to put my cigarette out. I probably would. The fact is a lot of nonsmokers don't mind or complain about cigarette smoke.

Just because we aren't complaining doesn't mean we don't mind. I usually don't complain because I don't want to get an angry smoker blowing their cancer cloud directly at me.

Just because we aren't complaining doesn't mean we don't mind. I usually don't complain because I don't want to get an angry smoker blowing their cancer cloud directly at me.

If I really cared that much about something I would say something. Obviously it doesn't bother you that bad. Cancer cloud... nice.

If I really cared that much about something I would say something. Obviously it doesn't bother you that bad. Cancer cloud... nice.

I'm introverted and non-confrontational. I tend to avoid anything that I think might exacerbate a problem.

If I really cared that much about something I would say something. Obviously it doesn't bother you that bad. Cancer cloud... nice.

What if it was put to a vote. Would you accept the result. That way the fear of confrontation is removed

What if it was put to a vote. Would you accept the result. That way the fear of confrontation is removed

Yeah of course. Democracy is the best way. Can I ask yall the same question? If it was voted not to ban smoking could yall accept that? or would yall keep on pushing and pushing.

Yeah of course. Democracy is the best way. Can I ask yall the same question? If it was voted not to ban smoking could yall accept that? or would yall keep on pushing and pushing.

Yeah i'd accept it. I'd maybe try to change attitudes to it so that future votes might produce a different outcome but other than that things would just stay the same.

I'm lucky though that where I live that isn't an issue for me since a ban has already been enacted without too many problems arising but I can understand that others mightn't be so happy. Its just lucky for me that the system worked in my favour this time

Yeah i'd accept it. I'd maybe try to change attitudes to it so that future votes might produce a different outcome but other than that things would just stay the same.

I'm lucky though that where I live that isn't an issue for me since a ban has already been enacted without too many problems arising but I can understand that others mightn't be so happy. Its just lucky for me that the system worked in my favour this time

See thats the problem when it doesn't go your way you need to "try to change attitudes to it so that future votes might produce a different outcome". Thats what they are trying to do here. They can't pass it so they try and try and try until it gets passed. Ramming down peoples throats, instead realizing this is what people want. I guess its not what people want just what one's self wants for everybody else. and thats not right

See thats the problem when it doesn't go your way you need to "try to change attitudes to it so that future votes might produce a different outcome". Thats what they are trying to do here. They can't pass it so they try and try and try until it gets passed. Ramming down peoples throats, instead realizing this is what people want. I guess its not what people want just what one's self wants for everybody else. and thats not right

People don't have to change their minds on successive votes. They could just keep voting against changes in the law. Of course when things go against my views i'll try and change them. It would be ridiculous not to. I'd expect the same of smokers.

People do have the right to change their minds and change their vote. Just because I would try to educate doesn't mean i would 'ram it down peoples throats'. You are making an assumption about how I would try to change opinions

The government has no place telling stupid people they can't kill themselves.

No. But they have a place in telling stupid people they can't kill other people.

People don't have to change their minds on successive votes. They could just keep voting against changes in the law. Of course when things go against my views i'll try and change them. It would be ridiculous not to. I'd expect the same of smokers.

People do have the right to change their minds and change their vote. Just because I would try to educate doesn't mean i would 'ram it down peoples throats'. You are making an assumption about how I would try to change opinions

I would call bring the same thing to vote over and over again ramming it down peoples throats. Anyway things like this don't get voted on by citizens, its done by state reps. which is crazy but thats the way its done. Thats why a lot laws people want changed won't get changed.

I would call bring the same thing to vote over and over again ramming it down peoples throats. Anyway things like this don't get voted on by citizens, its done by state reps. which is crazy but thats the way its done. Thats why a lot laws people want changed won't get changed.

Thats your view on its use and although I respect that I disagree. I'm going to have to go offline anyway but its been good discussing it with you.

Got to go home. It was fun everybody, and smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I enjoy smoking b/c it pisses non-smokers off even if they don't even live in the same country as I do.

Haha, I enjoy that too, but only if someone is being annoying. Other reasons why I enjoy are because it is social activity and very calming.

Scotland's smoking ban came into force at 6am on 26th March, 2006.

I am a smoker and, prior to this ban, I regularly went out to the pub and thought nothing of lighting up as and when I chose. I didn't smoke in restaurants, however, because there were always other people eating - often with children in tow - and it just seemed to me to be the polite thing to do.

When the ban came in and I was forced to think a little harder about the way I'd been going about it, my hypocrisy shocked me a little... why should it have been ok to inflict my habit on others in the pubs but not in the restaurants?

I actually have no complaints about the ban. Although I place great value on my personal freedom to do as I please with my life, it seems to me that this personal freedom should never be allowed to directly affect the health of other people. The evidence put forward by anti-smoking lobby groups re the effects of 'passive smoking' looks fairly conclusive to me and is in itself enough justification for the legislation.

Has it had a negative effect on the business of pub owners? Definitely!

People can (and do) cherry-pick statistics to 'prove' both sides of this little section of the debate. Rather than rely on such statistics, I go by what I have directly observed in the local area. The pubs that already had an outside seating area are thriving, those that can create one are doing so, and those that have no facility for smokers are dying.

Now, some will rabidly attack any change in society or any legislation that causes businesses to suffer. For them, the 'right' to make profit trumps all other concerns. This seems to me to be a little blinkered and, to use a crass analogy, I view the whole thing as being akin to what happened to blacksmiths when most people stopped using horses to get around. Things change, get over it.

To be honest, I think a better thing for people to ponder would be why all of our nations allow the tobacco industry to package up and sell a product that has been proven to be really, really bad for people, which is furiously addictive, and which conspires to place a huge burden on public health? I recognise that the same arguments could be made for other products and industries, but it doesn't make the question less valid.

Wow, now I need to rethink a few things :P


(In the interest of proper disclosure- I smoked 2 cigarettes whilst writing this post, sitting at my desk in the only room in the house that I still smoke in... my wife having given up the habit 5 years ago.)

The anti-smoking lobby admited in its own publications that it exagerated the effects of passive smoking to help get legislation passed. It's not about public health but about a vendetta.

With the types of pubs that are closing it is not just a run for profits but in many cases where the landlord lives and earns their money to carry on living without ending up on the dole. Some non-smokers would rather have people homeless and broke than to have to have someone smoking in the next room.

The proof is in how they campaign.

You can smell the BS at an incredible distance.

During the initial upstart campaign here in Ontario the commercials they were showing were just ridiculous. They were beyond being factual and were into scare tactics.

One of the ads I remember seeing and I think it was within the last year was that 1/2 of the people who smoke end up dead, to which I laughed and :rolleyes: because I couldn't help but to wonder, "does it mean I have a 50% chance of immortality?" :p

Or on TV, a commercial I've seen shows a woman blowing smoke OUT the window but some how this is miracle smoke because it travels ALL around her house, seeping into everything even though her cigarette and smoke are pointed out the window.

The main website, Stupid.ca (http://stupid.ca/) for the campaign could have been designed to actually hold real information and articles but it doesn't; it's designed to be snappy.

If I wanted good information on tobacco, I'd go to the Erowid (http://www.erowid.org/splash.php) site' they've got a good amount of information and despite being a site devoted all to the information on drugs, it is neither for nor against the existence of drugs; it simply provides information that anti-smoking lobby sites don't post.

The proof is in how they campaign.

You can smell the BS at an incredible distance.

During the initial upstart campaign here in Ontario the commercials they were showing were just ridiculous. They were beyond being factual and were into scare tactics.

One of the ads I remember seeing and I think it was within the last year was that 1/2 of the people who smoke end up dead, to which I laughed and :rolleyes: because I couldn't help but to wonder, "does it mean I have a 50% chance of immortality?" :p

Or on TV, a commercial I've seen shows a woman blowing smoke OUT the window but some how this is miracle smoke because it travels ALL around her house, seeping into everything even though her cigarette and smoke are pointed out the window.

The main website, Stupid.ca (http://stupid.ca/) for the campaign could have been designed to actually hold real information and articles but it doesn't; it's designed to be snappy.

If I wanted good information on tobacco, I'd go to the Erowid (http://www.erowid.org/splash.php) site' they've got a good amount of information and despite being a site devoted all to the information on drugs, it is neither for nor against the existence of drugs; it simply provides information that anti-smoking lobby sites don't post.
I think the same can be said of most lobby groups, to be honest. Even the NHS falls into that trap.

The anti-smoking lobby admited in its own publications that it exagerated the effects of passive smoking to help get legislation passed. It's not about public health but about a vendetta.

With the types of pubs that are closing it is not just a run for profits but in many cases where the landlord lives and earns their money to carry on living without ending up on the dole. Some non-smokers would rather have people homeless and broke than to have to have someone smoking in the next room.

I think the same can be said of most lobby groups, to be honest. Even the NHS falls into that trap.

I have no doubt that the anti-smoking pressure groups have exaggerated the effects of passive smoking, and so many of their more outrageous claims I take with a pinch of salt (which is also bad for me). However, anyone who accepts that smoking is bad for the smoker has no choice but to accept that passively inhaling smoke also poses dangers.

As for the lobbying tactics employed on all sides, I suppose it boils down to standard marketing strategies and the tabloid mentality that requires any concept these days to be sensationalised before the populace starts to take any notice. Sad, but true.

With reference to the failing businesses, please don't mistake what I intended to say, I hadn't meant to tar them all as merciless profit-seekers. Far from it... many of my closest friends' businesses have been directly affected by the ban and it is horrible to watch them suffer as they are. I simply tried to point out that, as society evolves, certain types of business find themselves without a viable place- it is inevitable.

Compared to the smoking bans in other parts of the country, this one is tame. You can actually apply to have the ban rescinded if you can prove it's hurting your business--I've never seen that included in a law.
Here in HK, all they needed to do was apply for an 'temporary' exemption before the ban (which came into place 1/1/07) - no need to show any negative effect on your business. The ones that did now have until July 2009 (30 months!) to give them enough time to alter (wtf?) their premises to cope with the new legislation.
As a result, something like 1/3 of all restaurants, 1/2 the bars and 2/3 of Karaoke bars are still smokers.
wet bus ticket legislation at it's worst.