NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

You "don't smoke" and yet you "light up on rare occasions"?

I'm sensing denial here.

On YouTube they've been hosting the "Truth" Ads, and here are what two people had to say about the "Truth" Ads.

These commercials just make me want to smoke MORE!

These commercials are so fcking stupid, they actually caused me to START smoking.

So apparently the "Truth" Ads fail.

It's very frustrating to see how many people do not really understand the difference between 'public' and 'privately owned but subject to legislation'.

There are a plethora of laws and regulations that apply to so called 'private' places like restaurants, ranging from labour standards, to health standards, to the basic building code. If you want to claim that legislation shouldn't touch a 'private place' you need to start by justifying why none of the above should apply first.

You're right, all this 'in a public place' stuff is silly.

We should just ban smoking altogether and be done with the things.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.


There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*



I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

You're right, all this 'in a public place' stuff is silly.

We should just ban smoking altogether and be done with the things.

Good luck with that.

It's the stench that's the problem. Not the fact that people are ruining themselves.

The problem with smoking is that it doesn't kill fast enough. :P

You're right, all this 'in a public place' stuff is silly.

We should just ban smoking altogether and be done with the things.

Yes, because the black market just isn't content with the illegal drugs in which it already trades. It would be just another front on the ludicrous War On Personal Freedom -- I mean, Drugs.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.


There's a difference between "public" and "publicly owned". A park is publicly owned, and you're allowed to smoke there.
A restaurant is a place that's public (as in : open to the public) in much the same way a museum, a cinema, a club and a church is public.
There are publicly owned places that are not open to the public, think schools, for example.

The legislation aims at public buildings, regardless who owns them.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common?
You can't sell unsafe food on your property either. Or refuse to sell food to someone because of their ethnicity. Or hire someone on your without following relevant workplace health and safety standards legislation. Just because you own property does not mean that you have your own mini fiefdom exempt from general law.

There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*

I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

As well you should. Keeping the secondary smoke out of indoor congregations is a fair idea. But when people are fucking with you when you're clearly not bothering anyone, that's WAY over the line. I don't smoke, but I'm not some pussy-boy faux-activist looking to make myself feel somehow morally superior, either.

When bars were left to the owners to decide about smoking, everyone had a choice (remember freedom of choice, America?). If you didn't want to go to a place with heavy smoker populations, you went to the places that decided to go smoke free or who had plausible non-smoking sections. And when the non-smoking section was full up, I took a table in the smoking section and didn't bitch, or I went somewhere else.

This is one of those rare issues that is truly best left to the market. It isn't like smokers think that there's vitamin C inside the cigarettes or something. It's a drug, they're addicted, no more or less than coffee-hounds. Some people I know will provide secondary BULLETS if they are kept from cigarettes too long. Is that bad for them? Sure. Is it my place to tell them what they can and cannot do when the smoke is obviously well-ventilated and no danger to me? No. No more than it's my place to tell the 350-pound WoW-addicted walking pimple to get some exercise and lay off the Little Debbies & Mountain Dew.

If laws are passed, then laws are passed -- they'll likely be obeyed as far as possible for those desiring to smoke. HOWEVER, the only thing MORE powerful than nicotine's addictive properties that keeps people smoking are asshole non-smokers who go out of their way to be rude and stupid.

Whatever the reason, about five years ago, most people I know stopped smoking in their houses, and go outside to smoke. No one forced them to...it just sort of became socially unacceptable to smoke inside. Few people smoke in their vehicles anymore either. Part of it is surely the damage that smoke does to the interior of a house/car. Another part of it is certainly the raised awareness about the danger of second hand smoke. Mostly though, I think people just don't want to smell like shit all the time.

Too bad teenagers are still lighting up with about the same frequency as they were when I was a teen. Dumbasses. You smell like shit, teens!

You're right, all this 'in a public place' stuff is silly.

We should just ban smoking altogether and be done with the things.

Ooor, here's a novel idea, stop trying to regulate how people choose to kill themselves.

There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*



I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

LOL! I like you.

I don't get 1 though: why do smokers even want to smoke in public. Polluting yourself for pleasure is 1 thing, but polluting others for your pleasure? That's something I don't understand. Really, it's fine if people smoke, but smoking in public thus polluting the area from random peopkle around you is something I'm against. That doesn't have anything to do with moralist nannies, it's simply not being an asshole.

Whatever the reason, about five years ago, most people I know stopped smoking in their houses, and go outside to smoke. No one forced them to...it just sort of became socially unacceptable to smoke inside. Few people smoke in their vehicles anymore either. Part of it is surely the damage that smoke does to the interior of a house/car. Another part of it is certainly the raised awareness about the danger of second hand smoke. Mostly though, I think people just don't want to smell like shit all the time. Thumbs up.

I agree with this as well.

My main beef is with activists on ANY issue who are too stupid to know that they're doing more harm than good to their cause when they act like hall monitors or unwanted camp counselors.

Whatever the reason, about five years ago, most people I know stopped smoking in their houses, and go outside to smoke. No one forced them to...it just sort of became socially unacceptable to smoke inside. Few people smoke in their vehicles anymore either. Part of it is surely the damage that smoke does to the interior of a house/car. Another part of it is certainly the raised awareness about the danger of second hand smoke. Mostly though, I think people just don't want to smell like shit all the time.

Too bad teenagers are still lighting up with about the same frequency as they were when I was a teen. Dumbasses. You smell like shit, teens!

Yea, one of my friends only smoke outside. She doesn't smoke in the house or in the car. She doesn't want the smell to get into the furniture or into the cab of her truck.

I don't get 1 though: why do smokers even want to smoke in public. Polluting yourself for pleasure is 1 thing, but polluting others for your pleasure? That's something I don't understand.

"Polluting others"? That's a bit vague, isn't it? If you're outside smoking more than 50ft. away from an entrance, who else are you "polluting"? It's this simplistic style that gets on my nerves.

Busy streets, train stations, places like that. Ofcourse you won't hear anyone complaining if someone lights one up while no one is around him/her, but I am bothered when people smoke in a busy shopping street. That's not simplistic, it's logical (really, you knew what I ment didn't you, just wanted a tiny little rant :p)

I don't get 1 though: why do smokers even want to smoke in public. Polluting yourself for pleasure is 1 thing, but polluting others for your pleasure? That's something I don't understand. Really, it's fine if people smoke, but smoking in public thus polluting the area from random peopkle around you is something I'm against. That doesn't have anything to do with moralist nannies, it's simply not being an asshole.

Bwahahaha thats very fucking funny. If you live in a city and take a stroll around the park, the chances that you get more 'polluted' from traffic than from walking by a smoker or two is very fuckin' high.

I think the solution is just for owners to make their places tobacco bars that happen to sell booze or food rather than restaurants or watering holes that allow smoking. If the primary use of the building is to house a place that sells and encourages the consumption of tobacco, I think that sends a strong signal that non-smokers need not enter.

Of course, someone far better versed on the laws in this area is going to correct my point of view (and rightly so), but it was nice while it lasted. Okay, go ahead. But be gentle.

I don't get 1 though: why do smokers even want to smoke in public. Polluting yourself for pleasure is 1 thing, but polluting others for your pleasure? That's something I don't understand. Really, it's fine if people smoke, but smoking in public thus polluting the area from random peopkle around you is something I'm against. That doesn't have anything to do with moralist nannies, it's simply not being an asshole.

See, the reason I smoke outside is BECAUSE I dont want other people to have to deal with my smoke. Im being polite. Im not "polluting others for my pleasure".

And dont try to get me to buy that outside, where there is wind and other things to cancel out my smoke, that second hand smoke will hurt them.



I honostly dont mind banning smoking in resteraunts. People are eating, and the smoke screws with the taste of food. However, banning it in bars is fucking stupid. People there are all grown ups, and youre drinking a poison for fucks sake.

Note the word pleasure ok? You sure as hell know what I mean. I just don't understand why some people don't care that they blow there poison (that's what it is) in other people's faces, in busy streets, simply places where lots of people are pretty close toghether. You won't hear my bitching about the sole fact that people smoke, do as you wish, just do it private, whereither it's in the open air or inside. Catch my drift?

I think the solution is just for owners to make their places tobacco bars that happen to sell booze or food rather than restaurants or watering holes that allow smoking. If the primary use of the building is to house a place that sells and encourages the consumption of tobacco, I think that sends a strong signal that non-smokers need not enter.

Of course, someone far better versed on the laws in this area is going to correct my point of view (and rightly so), but it was nice while it lasted. Okay, go ahead. But be gentle.

I actualy agree with the no smoking policy we now have over here in the UK. I really don't mind steping outside coz at least the inside don't reek anymore.

When bars were left to the owners to decide about smoking, everyone had a choice (remember freedom of choice, America?). If you didn't want to go to a place with heavy smoker populations, you went to the places that decided to go smoke free or who had plausible non-smoking sections. And when the non-smoking section was full up, I took a table in the smoking section and didn't bitch, or I went somewhere else. Awww, nice for you to live in a place that actually had some non-smoking bars. Because prior to the non-smoking regulations in Edmonton, there were none here. I guess there aren't enough non-smokers in a population of over a million to bother providing such specialised services.

Freedom of choice ends when your choice harms others. We don't allow people to 'choose' to work in asbestos-removal without proper safety equipment. Nor should we allow workers to 'choose' to not work in smoke-filled bars.

Although I did rather enjoy watching all the smokers huddle outside in the rain/snow when they were still allowed to smoke on the patio. You get no bar service out there, so I don't see why they didn't just continue allowing that.

This is one of those rare issues that is truly best left to the market. It isn't like smokers think that there's vitamin C inside the cigarettes or something. It's a drug, they're addicted, no more or less than coffee-hounds.
And yet, when I drink coffee, it doesn't magically fill the mouths of the people beside me drinking water...


Some people I know will provide secondary BULLETS if they are kept from cigarettes too long. Is that bad for them? Sure. Is it my place to tell them what they can and cannot do when the smoke is obviously well-ventilated and no danger to me? Yeah I don't see a problem with being allowed to smoke outside, as long as you don't have to walk through a thick fog of cigarette smoke to get inside.
HOWEVER, the only thing MORE powerful than nicotine's addictive properties that keeps people smoking are asshole non-smokers who go out of their way to be rude and stupid.

If someone is moronic enough to say 'I'm going to remain addicted because you say it's bad for me, and get all up in my face about it', then power to them. But claiming that asshole non-smokers are making smokers continue smoking...even insinuating it...is laughable.

"Oh yeah!? Well well...well I'm going to start smoking crack! Ha! See that non-smoker! Boy, too bad you didn't shut up huh!? Yeah, watch me now bitch! I'm smoking crack! Woohooo! I would have quit smoking if you didn't bug me but look out! Crack smoker here!":eek:

Note the word pleasure ok? You sure as hell know what I mean. I just don't understand why some people don't care that they blow there poison (that's what it is) in other people's faces, in busy streets, simply places where lots of people are pretty close toghether.

Outside second hand smoke is nonexistant. There is enough stuff in the air and there is wind.

Busy streets, train stations, places like that. Ofcourse you won't hear anyone complaining if someone lights one up while no one is around him/her, but I am bothered when people smoke in a busy shopping street. That's not simplistic, it's logical (really, you knew what I ment didn't you, just wanted a tiny little rant :p)

No, not really. Busy streets are choked with exhaust fumes when the wind isn't blowing, and when it is, what's the problem? Walk faster or slower, and *ding!* problem solved. Do you honestly think your aggregate accumulation of cigarette smoke from OUTDOOR sources is even CLOSE to the amount of smoke you'd inhale sitting around a campfire for a few hours? It's incidental! Walking past a dozen smokers in the course of half an hour while being outside is below negligible exposure, and no worse than background pollutants. And in chronically windy places (like, say, North Dakota), you could stand next to me with a ciggy the size of the Jolly Green Giant's enormous emerald cock, and I'd not be even remotely inconvenienced.

Give me liberty or give me death!

Outside second hand smoke is nonexistant. There is enough stuff in the air and there is wind.
Read again: I mean places where lots of people are pretty close toghether, like I care you smoke in a quiet park, but I do care when lots of people are comming together in that park, you're in the middle and you want to light a sigarrete. Thén I do mind. Again, I don't care if you're inside our outside, smoking is fine by me, just do it private.
No, not really. Busy streets are choked with exhaust fumes when the wind isn't blowing, and when it is, what's the problem? Walk faster or slower, and *ding!* problem solved. Do you honestly think your aggregate accumulation of cigarette smoke from OUTDOOR sources is even CLOSE to the amount of smoke you'd inhale sitting around a campfire for a few hours? It's incidental! Walking past a dozen smokers in the course of half an hour while being outside is below negligible exposure, and no worse than background pollutants. And in chronically windy places (like, say, North Dakota), you could stand next to me with a ciggy the size of the Jolly Green Giant's enormous emerald cock, and I'd not be even remotely inconvenienced.
I live in such a place, Holland, and I ám bothered when random people blow smoke in my face because I sure as hell notice it, especially because of my airways (and it's worse in spring). Every little less bit of dirt in other people's faces help, because all those little bits accumulate to a large amount. What I mean isn't that hard, I don't care if you smoke, just do it privatly. What's so strange about asking that?

you could stand next to me with a ciggy the size of the Jolly Green Giant's enormous emerald cock, and I'd not be even remotely inconvenienced.

Sigged :D

Bwahahaha thats very fucking funny. If you live in a city and take a stroll around the park, the chances that you get more 'polluted' from traffic than from walking by a smoker or two is very fuckin' high.

!Zing, got the nail banf on the head! In the uk, the Government is well aware it cant ban smoking outright in outside public places because they would have to ban air-travel, cars, trucks trains, busses etc on the same grounds.. - its bad for you and others around you!

(in fact, pollution from traffic is far more dangerous than any smoker.. just wish i had the nhs facts to back that up but I don't to hand so i cant claim this statement as a proven fact.. just take it as common sense.)

Besides smoking is still social.. Ive met loads of new people via smoking since the ban came into place here in the uk.

Anti-Smoking Activism is just another type of discrimination of ones life choice, sort of like religious hate and what-not. Except that this type of discrimination seems to be acceptable.

I honostly dont mind banning smoking in resteraunts. People are eating, and the smoke screws with the taste of food. However, banning it in bars is fucking stupid. People there are all grown ups, and youre drinking a poison for fucks sake.

See, when it was banned to smoke in pubs in Ireland, I had several massive benefits from that :

1) I could actually sit in a pub for more than 5 minutes without having to use eyedrops, and for more than 1 hour without having to repeatedly re-moisturise my contact lenses.

2) I could spend an hour in the pub after work, and could wear the same pants to work the next day. Also, I didn't get sick from just smelling my skin and hair waking up the next day, and my clothes didn't stink up my room any more.

3) Pubs now have outdoors tables and chairs to sit in the summer.

I like it. Totally. I don't see any problem with it whatsoever.

Note the word pleasure ok? You sure as hell know what I mean. I just don't understand why some people don't care that they blow there poison (that's what it is) in other people's faces, in busy streets, simply places where lots of people are pretty close toghether. You won't hear my bitching about the sole fact that people smoke, do as you wish, just do it private, whereither it's in the open air or inside. Catch my drift?

Again, bwhahahahha. Where do you sugest that people exhale their smoke in a busy street full of people?

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke.

I have no problems whatsoever with anyone breathing in intoxicants. It's the exhalation into a close area that I consider to be no less a physical assault than if I walked over to you and tried to pour even a few drops of my lovely beer down your throat.

It's primarily only smokers who assault others by forcing their toxic habits on the general population.

Note: a vaporiser, like some use with cannabis, is a great idea - it allows you (yes I specifically mean you) to partake of your intoxicant of choice without forcing it on others.

Well excuse me, but befoire the ban, it was your choice to enter a smokey environment as it was any member of staffs choice to work there..

Pints and ciggys have always gone together for me and now some stuck up bastards would rather penalise someone like me butting up the nhs with the amount of tax I pay than the thousands of bastards who dont car pool to work every day!

Awww, nice for you to live in a place that actually had some non-smoking bars. Because prior to the non-smoking regulations in Edmonton, there were none here. I guess there aren't enough non-smokers in a population of over a million to bother providing such specialised services.

Fair enough. Perhaps the solution is, as I posted a few minutes ago, allow the licensure of "smoking dens" for those who want to smoke indoors.

Freedom of choice ends when your choice harms others. We don't allow people to 'choose' to work in asbestos-removal without proper safety equipment. Nor should we allow workers to 'choose' to not work in smoke-filled bars.

Why do I always forget about servers and bartenders? Thank you for the reminder. I think the solution here would be to issue those people flitration masks. A statement, and kinda creepy all at the same time. Probably not going to convince a hardcore smoker, but interesting to imagine.

Although I did rather enjoy watching all the smokers huddle outside in the rain/snow when they were still allowed to smoke on the patio. You get no bar service out there, so I don't see why they didn't just continue allowing that.

Why leave well enough alone when you can legislate the beating of a dead horse? Ottawa/DC has to have SOMEthing to do, right? I mean, after all, the infrastructure, energy policy, education, the economy and defense are all in tip-top shape.

And yet, when I drink coffee, it doesn't magically fill the mouths of the people beside me drinking water...

Yeah, I know. But we're talking about a ban outside as well.

Yeah I don't see a problem with being allowed to smoke outside, as long as you don't have to walk through a thick fog of cigarette smoke to get inside.

Agreed.

If someone is moronic enough to say 'I'm going to remain addicted because you say it's bad for me, and get all up in my face about it', then power to them. But claiming that asshole non-smokers are making smokers continue smoking...even insinuating it...is laughable.

"Oh yeah!? Well well...well I'm going to start smoking crack! Ha! See that non-smoker! Boy, too bad you didn't shut up huh!? Yeah, watch me now bitch! I'm smoking crack! Woohooo! I would have quit smoking if you didn't bug me but look out! Crack smoker here!":eek:

The "asshole non-smoker" argument, while it illustrates a pet peeve about many activists I've met, is mostly a joke. Smoking just for spite is beyond stupid. However, that is why some "rebellious" teenagers take it up -- it'll piss off the 'rents.

Again, bwhahahahha. Where do you sugest that people exhale their smoke in a busy street full of people?
Because I notice? Really, would I say those things if I haven't encountered them? No, I wouldn't.

Really, the only thing I ask from smokers is this: smoke as much as you want, just do it in private, outdoors or indoors. What's so strange about asking that? And if you indeed smoke in private, be it indoors or outdoors, we don't have a problem with eachother and there is no use in argueing with eachother because it's already solved ;)

There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*



I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.
Wow that was rude. I like how he thought you're the jackass.

I feel like harassing smokers too, they smell as bad as people who haven't taken a shower in a week. It's immature to give in to the desire to be a jerk though, it's not that hard to just avoid standing downwind from smokers.

About banning smoking inside restaurants. Smoking customers is a work hazard for the staff. They shouldn't have to risk getting cancer from working at a restaurant. This only applies to the indoor tables, smoking should definitely be allowed at the outdoor tables.

(in fact, pollution from traffic is far more dangerous than any smoker.. just wish i had the nhs facts to back that up but I don't to hand so i cant claim this statement as a proven fact.. just take it as common sense.)



This argument is equivalent to saying you shouldn't ban landmines because missiles are way more dangerous.

Most places in the industrialised West have, or are working on legislation that enforces emissions reductions in vehicles. It's one of the reasons your vehicle needs to meet certain standards to be considered legally road-worthy. There are jurisdictions that are extremely proactive in this sense. In Edmonton, we have a 'no idling' by-law (which, due to the extreme temperatures we experience during the winter likely will have to be modified somewhat based on the season), providing for fines for violation. Other areas give tax credits for low-emission vehicles. Even parking costs and/or tolls can be used to control traffic in congested areas. There are a myriad of ways in which we attempt to balance our transportation needs with our health needs.

So no. We don't have to wait until vehicles only emit water in order to deal with smoking now.

Wow that was rude. I like how he thought you're the jackass.

Sod off. Trying to be some pseudo activist/moralist nanny and going out of your way to harass someone for doing something totally lawful is rude. If youre going to be a dick, dont expect the person youre being a dick to to be polite.



Il be the first to admit Im a prick. All of my friends, my family, my fiance, etc all know Im a prick. Some random person scolding me is telling me nothing new.

Im nice to people who count. Idiots like the two in my story dont count.

Anti-Smoking Activism is just another type of discrimination of ones life choice, sort of like religious hate and what-not. Except that this type of discrimination seems to be acceptable.

Yes, it's discrimination. But no, it's not sort of like religious hate and what-not. We discriminate against people who want to relieve themselves against the side of a building too, but once again, it's not the same as religious hate and what-not.

Well excuse me, but befoire the ban, it was your choice to enter a smokey environment as it was any member of staffs choice to work there.. Yes! While we're at it, let's abolish the minimum wage, saftey standards and all labour laws! That way, just like during the unregulated Industrial Revolution, workers can choose to work in places that pay a living wage and offer safe working conditions! Because obviously, the free market will provide these things all on its own!

Sod off. Trying to be some pseudo activist/moralist nanny and going out of your way to harass someone for doing something totally lawful is rude. If youre going to be a dick, dont expect the person youre being a dick to to be polite.
That is 1 thing I agree on, all those people who keep saying "yea smoking is bad (mkaay), don't smoke", I have just 1 thing to say to them:
Shut up, we know that by now!!!
I mean, why the hell care if people rather want to enjoy an addiction in there own private space. That's why I'm not necceseraly against other drugs then nicotine, if people want to use marihuana in there own private space I won't stop them either. But the only thing I ask, is to do it in your own private space, be it outdoors or indoors I don't care, just somewhere private. Is that something wierd to ask?

This argument is equivalent to saying you shouldn't ban landmines because missiles are way more dangerous.

Most places in the industrialised West have, or are working on legislation that enforces emissions reductions in vehicles. It's one of the reasons your vehicle needs to meet certain standards to be considered legally road-worthy. There are jurisdictions that are extremely proactive in this sense. In Edmonton, we have a 'no idling' by-law (which, due to the extreme temperatures we experience during the winter likely will have to be modified somewhat based on the season), providing for fines for violation. Other areas give tax credits for low-emission vehicles. Even parking costs and/or tolls can be used to control traffic in congested areas. There are a myriad of ways in which we attempt to balance our transportation needs with our health needs.

So no. We don't have to wait until vehicles only emit water in order to deal with smoking now.

You sir are a fool. Even with lower emissions you are still doing more damage to your lungs walking down a busy street than breathing in second hand smoke. NY is a great example of the stupidity of the law! If I want to give myself a higher risk of cancer, I will continue to smoke. its a brilliant appettite repressant, still very social and at the end of the day, relaxing.. (although thats a result of keeing the nicotine gremlins at bay rather than not being stressed)

Yes, it's discrimination. But no, it's not sort of like religious hate and what-not. We discriminate against people who want to relieve themselves against the side of a building too, but once again, it's not the same as religious hate and what-not.

Well its discrimination aimed at some one over something they like to do. If people want to smoke its there choice, they can gamble with the side affects if they want.
If you support anti-smoking discrimination then by extension you should support discrimination against people who eat certain kinds of food etc.

Sod off. Trying to be some pseudo activist/moralist nanny and going out of your way to harass someone for doing something totally lawful is rude. If youre going to be a dick, dont expect the person youre being a dick to to be polite.



Il be the first to admit Im a prick. All of my friends, my family, my fiance, etc all know Im a prick. Some random person scolding me is telling me nothing new.

Im nice to people who count. Idiots like the two in my story dont count.
You where not a prick though, you where the one being harassed in both situations and on top of that blamed for being the jackass in one of them. Of course one can't expect people to be polite in return if you're harassing them.

You sir are a fool. Even with lower emissions you are still doing more damage to your lungs walking down a busy street than breathing in second hand smoke. NY is a great example of the stupidity of the law! If I want to give myself a higher risk of cancer, I will continue to smoke. its a brilliant appettite repressant, still very social and at the end of the day, relaxing.. (although thats a result of keeing the nicotine gremlins at bay rather than not being stressed)
Smoke from sigarrets is a part from the pollution in busy streets, it's not something different. Again, is the thing I asked several times before now thát wierd? Btw, I'm glad lots of smokers indeed smoke only in a prive envoriment, be it outside or inside, I'm totally fine with those people.

Yes! While we're at it, let's abolish the minimum wage, saftey standards and all labour laws! That way, just like during the unregulated Industrial Revolution, workers can choose to work in places that pay a living wage and offer safe working conditions! Because obviously, the free market will provide these things all on its own!

WTF! it was literally you work in a puyb, you expect to be in a smokey environment. Just where the hell did you manage to pull the rest of that crap from, your ass. I faill to see your point as you are being extremist and way off base ;)

At the end of the day, i'll say this. if it is legal to purchase tobacco products then it is against my rights as a smoker to tell me when and where I can light up! - Apparently several pubs in England are realising this and fighting the law :O

I agree that smoking outdoors in a restaurant should be allowed. As a libertarian, I don't like it when the government tells anyone how to live. I think that if a restaurant wants to have a smoking section, and that offends the workers or the other customers, there is a simple solution: don't go there, don't work there. Its that simple. There are likely MANY other places nearby that do not allow smoking that would be happy for their business.

However, that being said, I don't smoke and I think that the hazards of tobacco are real and should be taken seriously.

But, one thing I have never understood is the smoking ban in bars that went into law where I live. If a place is under legal zoning classification as a BAR and not a RESTAURANT, then what right does the gov't have to ban smoking in there? Smoking 20 cigs in a row can't kill you, but doing 20 shots in a row can. So what poses a more immediate threat? Plus, if people are there to drink booze, what right do they have to claim that smoking should not occur in the same location due to 'health' reasons?

Because I notice? Really, would I say those things if I haven't encountered them? No, I wouldn't.

Really, the only thing I ask from smokers is this: smoke as much as you want, just do it in private, outdoors or indoors. What's so strange about asking that? And if you indeed smoke in private, be it indoors or outdoors, we don't have a problem with eachother and there is no use in argueing with eachother because it's already solved ;)


Thats not an answer to my question though is it. When you encounter aa smoker in the street, is the street too small for you to move away from them, or not to walk in front of them at the moment they exhale?

As to do it in private, you care not for civil liberties then?

If you support anti-smoking discrimination then by extension you should support discrimination against people who eat certain kinds of food etc.
I assume this is why people who smoke AND people who are overweight can expect to pay higher health insurance premiums.

Thats not an answer to my question though is it. When you encounter aa smoker in the street, is the street too small for you to move away from them, or not to walk in front of them at the moment they exhale?

As to do it in private, you care not for civil liberties then?
I thought the answer was enough, because yes I did encounter that. And not just in busy streets, also when I have to wait for the bus or train, or simply waiting to cross the street.
And about civil liberties, I don't see how those are involved, I'm not talking about a law or something. I just ask something: would smokers mind not smoking in busy places and not bother people with there smoke by smoking in private, be it indoors or outdoors. Is that so much to ask? Would you mind not bother random folks with your addiction? But I really don't mind you have one, I have my own addictions, but I won't bother anyone with it. That's just social, don't you think?

You where not a prick though, you where the one being harassed in both situations and on top of that blamed for being the jackass in one of them. Of course one can't expect people to be polite in return if you're harassing them.

OH SHIT! My bad, I thought you were telling me I was rude.


I retract my "sod off" statement;) And apologize.

Fair enough. Perhaps the solution is, as I posted a few minutes ago, allow the licensure of "smoking dens" for those who want to smoke indoors.
Before the smoking bans here, there were a few of these 'smoking dens'...I can't imagine why even a smoker would want to go in there. I mean...smoking your own cigarette is one thing, but being completely imbued with the smoke of all the other smokers in the place? Ugh.

Again, if one of the reasons for the ban is workplace safety, I can't see how the government could provide for exceptions in the case of these 'smoking dens'. You can't contract out of certain statutory protections.

Why do I always forget about servers and bartenders? Thank you for the reminder. I think the solution here would be to issue those people flitration masks. A statement, and kinda creepy all at the same time. Probably not going to convince a hardcore smoker, but interesting to imagine. I have a little theory...bear with me. Alright...consider how many places, pre-ban, allowed smoking on the premises. Some of them are big businesses, with plenty of cash. Some are small little hole-in-the-wall type places.

Now, say you passed regulations allowing smoking as long as there is an extensive ventilation system installed...pictures the sort of vents you have above deep-friers for example, situated all throughout the room (also imagine the noise...). Fine, some businesses would do this, and be able to absorb the cost, but most assuredly, many of the smaller businesses would not.

I suspect that while most businesses don't necessarily want the out and out ban, that they would nonetheless prefer it to a situation where they might get squeezed out by businesses with deeper pockets. Just a theory.

In any case, perhaps it was simply seen as not feasible to allow for complicated ventilation requirements...not only would the equipment have to be installed, a uniform code would have to be adopted, with inspectors, regular inspections, and some form of air-safety certification....including a system of fines for violators, appeals from decisions made and so forth. The administrative cost seems very high compared to an all out ban. It honestly could quite simply have hinged on that.


Why leave well enough alone when you can legislate the beating of a dead horse? Ottawa/DC has to have SOMEthing to do, right? I mean, after all, the infrastructure, energy policy, education, the economy and defense are all in tip-top shape.I'm not exactly sure why they didn't stop at 'smoke outside or not at all', to be honest. But I do support the ban on advertising of tobacco products, even of having them covered up in stores now, rather than attractively and prominently displayed.

Yeah, I know. But we're talking about a ban outside as well.

The ban inside, and the ban outside, are two different things I believe. The ban inside has mostly been justified by the health danger posed to workers. I'm not sure how they can justify the ban outside. Not a complete ban anyway. I mean, there were already by-law in respect of public buildings that stipulated a required distance from any entrance or exit...no one should have to walk through a thick fog of smoke on their way into a hospital for example. The current ban in Edmonton has been extended to some ridiculous distance now from any entrance/exit of a public building (and I'm including private businesse that are open to the public)...to the extent that you'd have to be standing in the middle of the street in some areas to actually comply. I don't see the reason for that, frankly.



The "asshole non-smoker" argument, while it illustrates a pet peeve about many activists I've met, is mostly a joke. Smoking just for spite is beyond stupid. However, that is why some "rebellious" teenagers take it up -- it'll piss off the 'rents.
I figured you were speaking mostly tongue in cheek, hence my tongue in cheek monologue :P Though...some people really do espouse the opinion you've illustrated.

Ugh, teens. I'm not looking forward to my girls reaching that age. Teens shove spikes through their noses, get tattoos from seedy, Hep-infested parlours, drive drunk, or become fundamentalist Christians along with any other number of stupid assholery to 'rebel'.

Ah, 'twas a divine time... :D

I thought the answer was enough, because yes I did encounter that. And not just in busy streets, also when I have to wait for the bus or train, or simply waiting to cross the street.
And about civil liberties, I don't see how those are involved, I'm not talking about a law or something. I just ask something: would smokers mind not smoking in busy places and not bother people with there smoke by smoking in private, be it indoors or outdoors. Is that so much to ask? Would you mind not bother random folks with your addiction? But I really don't mind you have one, I have my own addictions, but I won't bother anyone with it. That's just social, don't you think?

No my question was where exactly would you suggest that a smoker exhale, whilst in a busy street full of people?

Yes it is too much to ask, smoking in public places has already been banned. You obviously don't smoke or you would know that the addictive quality of it dictates to a large degree when you smoke. If that is in a street full of people then taht is where it is.

OH SHIT! My bad, I thought you were telling me I was rude.


I retract my "sod off" statement;) And apologize.
So I was too vague which easily happens in text only conversations but now the misunderstanding is solved.
No my question was where exactly would you suggest that a smoker exhale, whilst in a busy street full of people?

Yes it is too much to ask, smoking in public places has already been banned. You obviously don't smoke or you would know that the addictive quality of it dictates to a large degree when you smoke. If that is in a street full of people then taht is where it is.
I'm addicted to peeing and sometimes the urge to empty my bladder comes over me in the middle of a busy street...

You sir are a fool. That's Ma'am to you.


Even with lower emissions you are still doing more damage to your lungs walking down a busy street than breathing in second hand smoke. Absolutely. I don't contest that. I'm saying it doesn't matter. We don't have to wait for there to be zero emissions for us to deal with a health and work-safety related matter that has nothing to do with vehicles.


NY is a great example of the stupidity of the law! If I want to give myself a higher risk of cancer, I will continue to smoke. its a brilliant appettite repressant, still very social and at the end of the day, relaxing.. (although thats a result of keeing the nicotine gremlins at bay rather than not being stressed)Sorry, I'm not seeing anything in your brilliant diatribe on the wonders of smoking that would justify not banning smoking 'cuz cars are worse'.

We don't need to wait until we solve climate change in order to do things like prevent people from burning their garbage in their back yards.

WTF! it was literally you work in a puyb, you expect to be in a smokey environment. Just where the hell did you manage to pull the rest of that crap from, your ass. I faill to see your point as you are being extremist and way off base ;)
Your being foolish, what she said is all true. Not everyone has a choice of where to work, the under qualified may have beening looking to the limit of the benefit system and not able to get work, so have a choice of no money or work in a smoky bar, also what if you need evening or night work due to child care etc there not a lot of night work out there (trust me on this) so bar work may be there only choice

At the end of the day, i'll say this. if it is legal to purchase tobacco products then it is against my rights as a smoker to tell me when and where I can light up! - Apparently several pubs in England are realising this and fighting the law :O
It is illegal to drink in the street, (even if this law is largely ignored), Bar-b-que in parks with out a permit, do poy without public libabity insurance.
there more but i wont go on, Ther a lot of regulation of where you can and can't do thing it is not against your right as a smoker to ban you smoking inside

Well its discrimination aimed at some one over something they like to do. If people want to smoke its there choice, they can gamble with the side affects if they want.
If you support anti-smoking discrimination then by extension you should support discrimination against people who eat certain kinds of food etc.

Only if you don't understand how to form a working analogy.

When the guy next to me stuffs his obese face with another big mac, my health is not negatively impacted. Nor is the health of the workers of the greasy-spoon establishment in which we dine. The same can not be said of smoking.

It is discrimination when we say that 4 year olds shouldn't be able to drive. It is a justified use of discrimination because we see little benefit to allowing them behind the wheel, and much detriment to the public at large if we did. In all things, we balance the rights, and needs of the various parties and try to come to some sort of compromise that causes the least amount of harm. Smokers are not HARMED by these bans.

Since forks are dangerous and can hurt people I think we need to ban those too. People are too stupid to know what's best for them, and how to protect themselves, so we need a strong government to tell them what to do with every moment of their meaningless existences.

Neesika, it seems to me as though we have incredibly different views of the role of government.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up. Contradiction.
Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.That hasn't worked in the past.
And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.Are you kidding? Smoking near children is one of the most irresponsible things you can do.
Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.Good for the people that enjoy it. Some have problems with inhaling carcinogenic substances. If smoke only affected the people smoking, this wouldn't be a problem.

WTF! it was literally you work in a puyb, you expect to be in a smokey environment. Yes, and when you work in a coal mine, you expect to work in a dusty, dangerous environment. Nonetheless, this fact does not stop us from passing workplace safety regulations to lessen the danger, nor does it stop us from passing labour laws which restrict the amount of hours you can continuously work. Nor does it stop us from instituting minimum wage requirements. You cannot contract out of these safety and labour requirements...they are non-negotiable (in the main). Why? Because it is in the public interest to ensure certain standards of safety and labour protection.

You don't get to choose to walk into a workplace with substandard safety and labour standards, and have your choice make it ok. Can you read all of that again? I'm sensing a real struggle with comprehension.


Just where the hell did you manage to pull the rest of that crap from, your ass. I faill to see your point as you are being extremist and way off base ;) I realise you fail to see the point, so I'll spell it out. We already live in societies that restrict the freedom of the market when it comes to things like health/safety/labour standards. Entirely on base. Personal choice must give way to these sorts of restrictions.

At the end of the day, i'll say this. if it is legal to purchase tobacco products then it is against my rights as a smoker to tell me when and where I can light up! - Apparently several pubs in England are realising this and fighting the law :O
It is legal to purchase alcohol (once you're reached the age of majority). It is not, however, legal to drink and drive. Nor can you drink in many public places. The legality of the product does not extend itself to the legality of all activities associated with the product. Fail.

Since forks are dangerous and can hurt people I think we need to ban those too. People are too stupid to know what's best for them, and how to protect themselves, so we need a strong government to tell them what to do with every moment of their meaningless existences.

Neesika, it seems to me as though we have incredibly different views of the role of government.

I don't agree that it's about the stupidity of people and their inability to make good choices. I believe it is about a fundamental disparity in power. We have things like health regulations in respect of the preparation of food...not because people are too stupid to know that having someone sneeze in your salad, or having rats shitting all over the place is unhealthy...but because the individual, or even a large group of people do not have the means to ensure that these things don't happen. We do not, as individuals, or even as a collection of individuals, have the resources to inspect the restaurants we eat ate, and to ensure that food is being prepared in hygenic and safe circumstances. Yet we recognise that the potential harm to the public is serious enough that some sorts of standards have to be implemented.

We entrust the government, and various administrative bodies with this task, because they have the resources to take care of the many safety, health and labour issues we cannot police on our own.

Market forces alone will still not afford the individual consumer with all the necessary information or ability to collect said information in order to make informed choices about the safety of restaurants/hospitals/mechanics and so on.

Now, you can still feel that smoking bans have gone too far, and really, that's going to come down to our opinions on the matter...but are you actually suggesting that the government has no place in the setting of certain standards, the monitoring of compliance, and the punishment of violators (aside from the issue of smoking)? Do you actually want to live in a society like that?

as a non-smoker (how that happened I don't know) its never really bothered me either way even though I don't think I have a friend who doesn't smoke

this may however be because its warm now and during the winter I went to a bar which has a little conservatory thing with an awesome heater

As a libertarian

how dull.

I could spend an hour in the pub after work, and could wear the same pants to work the next day.

I don't know why people lie like this, have you ever spent only an hour at a local pub before leaving?

Well its discrimination aimed at some one over something they like to do. If people want to smoke its there choice, they can gamble with the side affects if they want.
If you support anti-smoking discrimination then by extension you should support discrimination against people who eat certain kinds of food etc.Now that's just fucking stupid. Last I checked, someone eating a pizza while sitting next to me had no effect even remotely comparable to someone smoking next to me.

It is legal to purchase alcohol (once you're reached the age of majority). It is not, however, legal to drink and drive. Nor can you drink in many public places. The legality of the product does not extend itself to the legality of all activities associated with the product. Fail.

I can go to a pub and drink a pint that is arguably doing more damage than smoking is yet I cant light up on 'health grounds' - Fail.

Health and safety at work act - Fail. The ban had nothing to do with that act. It was all to do with cutting down the amount of smokers.

People have to work in pubs due to lack of work - Fail. They probably just didnt want to work as dustmen/women, train to be plumbers/builders, take adult education classes to help gain qualifications that they didnt get when younger due to either a: Laziness or b: Dislexyia (sp?) - The latter i can sympathise with. End of the day.. bar work is not a last ditch job.

I have a right to drown my sorrows and damage my liver and kidneys beyond repair in a pub but i cannot smoke because its a danger to others around me who have more chance of getting cancer from drinking redwine or walking down the street...

Yeah.. ok.. whatever...

Drinking is a danger to others around you.. have you ever witnessed a drunken brawl or had some drunken iditot swing a bottle/fist/chair at you?

See, when it was banned to smoke in pubs in Ireland, I had several massive benefits from that :

1) I could actually sit in a pub for more than 5 minutes without having to use eyedrops, and for more than 1 hour without having to repeatedly re-moisturise my contact lenses.

2) I could spend an hour in the pub after work, and could wear the same pants to work the next day. Also, I didn't get sick from just smelling my skin and hair waking up the next day, and my clothes didn't stink up my room any more.

3) Pubs now have outdoors tables and chairs to sit in the summer.

I like it. Totally. I don't see any problem with it whatsoever.As an Irish friend of mine said: "In a real Irish pub, you wouldn't have come home smelling like smoke."
And now the Irish pubs in Germany allow you to do just that. =)

Drinking is a danger to others around you.. have you ever witnessed a drunken brawl or had some drunken iditot swing a bottle/fist/chair at you?I can remember the last time I didn't see one. It was last Friday when I got plastered. Cigarette smoke, on the other hand, is not influenced by the personality of the smoker.

No my question was where exactly would you suggest that a smoker exhale, whilst in a busy street full of people?

Yes it is too much to ask, smoking in public places has already been banned. You obviously don't smoke or you would know that the addictive quality of it dictates to a large degree when you smoke. If that is in a street full of people then taht is where it is.
What I would suggest is that a smoker simply does not light up a smoke in the middle of a busy street. It's pretty dámn selfish to just don't care about all those other people and just smoke away even if you're in the middle of a crowd, that's really a-social, and why the hell should non-smokers accept that?
I can go to a pub and drink a pint that is arguably doing more damage than smoking is yet I cant light up on 'health grounds' - Fail.
No it's for the other people, read a reaction on page 3:
1) I could actually sit in a pub for more than 5 minutes without having to use eyedrops, and for more than 1 hour without having to repeatedly re-moisturise my contact lenses.

2) I could spend an hour in the pub after work, and could wear the same pants to work the next day. Also, I didn't get sick from just smelling my skin and hair waking up the next day, and my clothes didn't stink up my room any more.
I really don't mind people who smoke, I only mind a-social pricks who don't think about the people around them (wich doesn't have to be a smoker necceraly).
Drinking is a danger to others around you.. have you ever witnessed a drunken brawl or had some drunken iditot swing a bottle/fist/chair at you?
Those people are also a-social pricks, again I'm fine with people become drunken idiots, as long as they do it in there own private space, be it outdoors or indoors. And the good thing is, drunken brawl fights are indeed not allowed.

All these anti-smokers make scott want to go light up.


*grabs camels and goes outside*

:p

I can remember the last time I didn't see one. It was last Friday when I got plastered. Cigarette smoke, on the other hand, is not influenced by the personality of the smoker.

So you ignore the bit about irreperable liver and kidney damage and focus on that.

Lets get this straight:

SMOKING may cause CANCER
DRINKING does cause HEART, LIVER and KIDNEY problems

So why should i not be able to light up next to the guy on his 5th pint of the evening.. he's already done more damage than my one ciggy.

People have to work in pubs due to lack of work–Fail. They probably just didnt want to work as dustmen/women, train to be plumbers/builders, take adult education classes to help gain qualifications that they didnt get when younger due to either a: Laziness or b: Dislexyia (sp?)–The latter i can sympathise with. End of the day.. bar work is not a last ditch job.
What are you wittering on about?

Are you forgetting the thousands, millions even, of students, young people and others on low income who can’t do anything but work in a pub, café or other service industry? Folks who can only do part-time work, or need a second job to pay for their day-to-day lives.

I don’t entirely agree with the way smoking bans are operated, but the notion that those who work in pubs and the like are either lazy or have learning difficulties is complete and utter nonsense.

So why should i not be able to light up next to the guy on his 5th pint of the evening.. he's already done more damage than my one ciggy.
Note the difference between his choice to potentially damage his body through his drinking, and his lack of choice in you potentially damaging his body through your smoking. Big difference.

There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*



I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

LOL!!!

I hear you!

I had a run in with some kids protesting Shell petrol stations...on the way out one of them pushed some bolshey bollocks pamphlet about the evils of globalisation...I pointed out that he could fuck right off unless he took off the nike trainers he was wearing and stop drinking the can of Coke he had...tossers.

So you ignore the bit about irreperable liver and kidney damage and focus on that.

Lets get this straight:

SMOKING may cause CANCER
DRINKING does cause HEART, LIVER and KIDNEY problems

So why should i not be able to light up next to the guy on his 5th pint of the evening.. he's already done more damage than my one ciggy.
But the guy with his pints doesn't force his pints upon someone else now does he? He doesn't prevent people with breathing problems from having a good time. The analogy between smoking and drinking fails.

What are you wittering on about?

Are you forgetting the thousands, millions even, of students, young people and others on low income who can’t do anything but work in a pub, café or other service industry? Folks who can only do part-time work, or need a second job to pay for their day-to-day lives.

I don’t entirely agree with the way smoking bans are operated, but the notion that those who work in pubs and the like are either lazy or have learning difficulties is complete and utter nonsense...

My point was actually a counter point to one above that bar work is for those who can't find work. From my experience, its not true. Im on jobseekers allowance. There are 17 pubs and 2 clubs in my town, all looking for bar staff, all of them wanting Experienced bar staff.. - not a last ditch job in my humble oppinion then!

So you ignore the bit about irreperable liver and kidney damage and focus on that.

Lets get this straight:

SMOKING may cause CANCER
DRINKING does cause HEART, LIVER and KIDNEY problems

So why should i not be able to light up next to the guy on his 5th pint of the evening.. he's already done more damage than my one ciggy.Here's a newsflash:

SMOKING MAY CAUSE CANCER IN EVERYONE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE SMOKER
DRINKING ALCOHOL CAN CAUSE HEART, LIVER, AND KIDNEY PROBLEMS IN THE DRINKING PERSON ONLY

It's not about you doing damage to yourself, it's about you doing damage to everyone around you. You can't choose not to breath like you can choose not to drink.

My point was actually a counter point to one above that bar work is for those who can’t find work. From my experience, its not true. Im on jobseekers allowance. There are 17 pubs and 2 clubs in my town, all looking for bar staff, all of them wanting Experienced bar staff..–not a last ditch job in my humble oppinion then!
My apologies then; the language you used was confusing.

LOL!!!

I hear you!

I had a run in with some kids protesting Shell petrol stations...on the way out one of them pushed some bolshey bollocks pamphlet about the evils of globalisation...I pointed out that he could fuck right off unless he took off the nike trainers he was wearing and stop drinking the can of Coke he had...tossers.

Contradicting activists are my favorite.

What are you wittering on about?

Are you forgetting the thousands, millions even, of students, young people and others on low income who can’t do anything but work in a pub, café or other service industry? Folks who can only do part-time work, or need a second job to pay for their day-to-day lives.

I don’t entirely agree with the way smoking bans are operated, but the notion that those who work in pubs and the like are either lazy or have learning difficulties is complete and utter nonsense.


Note the difference between his choice to potentially damage his body through his drinking, and his lack of choice in you potentially damaging his body through your smoking. Big difference.

Well said that man!

My point was actually a counter point to one above that bar work is for those who can't find work. From my experience, its not true. Im on jobseekers allowance. There are 17 pubs and 2 clubs in my town, all looking for bar staff, all of them wanting Experienced bar staff.. - not a last ditch job in my humble oppinion then!The Pubs in my home city take low qualified waiters. A couple former school friends job there.

But the guy with his pints doesn't force his pints upon someone else now does he? He doesn't prevent people with breathing problems from having a good time. The analogy between smoking and drinking fails.

I fucking give up on this thread. All you anti-smokers are living on Government fed bolloks. The fact is you have a chance of getting cancer.... |Most things nowadays have a chance of giving you cancer.

The ban in the uk was introduced because smoking is considered dangerous. We have health warnings all over our pouches and packts telling us what we all ready know. Why is it not on alcohol.

Im going to boil it down to its simplest level - People don't like smokers. Forget all the health stuff, thats what the bottom line is!

On YouTube they've been hosting the "Truth" Ads, and here are what two people had to say about the "Truth" Ads.

So apparently the "Truth" Ads fail.

Only if:

1. The denizens of Youtube Comments are representative of the population as a whole (God I hope not...)

2. They're telling the truth rather than just trolling.

I can go to a pub and drink a pint that is arguably doing more damage than smoking is yet I cant light up on 'health grounds' - Fail.
Even if having a pint was more dangerous than having a cigarette, something I seriously doubt, you are a danger to yourself and yourself alone. That's your choice. However, when that damage is transfered to others, then it becomes a public health issue.

Health and safety at work act - Fail. The ban had nothing to do with that act. It was all to do with cutting down the amount of smokers.
Way to miss the point entirely.

People have to work in pubs due to lack of work - Fail. They probably just didnt want to work as dustmen/women, train to be plumbers/builders, take adult education classes to help gain qualifications that they didnt get when younger due to either a: Laziness or b: Dislexyia (sp?) - The latter i can sympathise with. End of the day.. bar work is not a last ditch job.
Working in a hospital as a doctor is not a last ditch job but nonetheless doctors demand and get a certain level of protection from diseases and infections from their employer. It is not accepted that doctors ought to catch diseases from their patients because they work in a hospital, or not be a doctor, so why should bar staff be expected to accept being exposed to such danger?


I have a right to drown my sorrows and damage my liver and kidneys beyond repair in a pub but i cannot smoke because its a danger to others around me who have more chance of getting cancer from drinking redwine or walking down the street...
I would put something new here, but since I'm lazy, I'll just redirect you to my response to your first point.

Drinking is a danger to others around you.. have you ever witnessed a drunken brawl or had some drunken iditot swing a bottle/fist/chair at you?
Yes, and as it is dangerous to the health of someone else (and also seriously to the drunkard in question) being that drunk and disorderly is illegal, exactly the same reasoning for the indoor public smoking ban.

What I would suggest is that a smoker simply does not light up a smoke in the middle of a busy street. It's pretty dámn selfish to just don't care about all those other people and just smoke away even if you're in the middle of a crowd, that's really a-social, and why the hell should non-smokers accept that?


Ahhhh so you are agianst civil liberties. Tell me what harm does smoking in the street do to the non smoker?

Only if:

1. The denizens of Youtube Comments are representative of the population as a whole (God I hope not...)

2. They're telling the truth rather than just trolling.

Well, to be fair Truth Ads are totally rediculous. The one where the guy goes looking for "light bullets" in gun shops and then turns it into this metaphor for how light cigarettes are not any less harmful. Idiotic. I dont think people smoke lights because they foolishly believe theyre less harmful and addictive. They smoke them because theyre not as harsh.


Truth Ads preach to the choir. Ergo, they are a waste of time.

Ahhhh so you are agianst civil liberties. Tell me what harm does smoking in the street do to the non smoker?

Virtually none, because of all the wind and such that delutes the smoke. However, its far more beneficial to the anti-smoking lobby to pretend that if you are within 15 feet of a smoker, outside, on a windy, rainy day, you will still get cancer.

I fucking give up on this thread. All you anti-smokers are living on Government fed bolloks. The fact is you have a chance of getting cancer.... |Most things nowadays have a chance of giving you cancer.Why increase the amount of things that can give you cancer, then?
The ban in the uk was introduced because smoking is considered dangerous. We have health warnings all over our pouches and packts telling us what we all ready know. Why is it not on alcohol.Because unlike with ciggarettes, certain forms of alcoholic beverages will actually have beneficial health effects, such as drinking the occasional glass of wine.
Im going to boil it down to its simplest level - People don't like smokers. Forget all the health stuff, thats what the bottom line is!It's a lot simpler, actually: People don't like smoke.

Im going to boil it down to its simplest level - People don't like smokers. Forget all the health stuff, thats what the bottom line is!

Agreed. Although I don't like racists, does that give me the right to acost them in the street and call them jerks.....

Ohhh heh no scap that that one.

Okay I don't drivers, they pollute much worse than smokers, they gripe about the more than reasonable congestion charge, and they are all gonna fuckin' vote that Tory prick Borris for mayor.

I don't ask them to stop this behavour though, coz that would be an infringement of their freedoms.

Contradicting activists are my favorite.

At least SWP activists live the dream...they'd never be seen in a pair of nikes LOL

Because unlike with ciggarettes, certain forms of alcoholic beverages will actually have beneficial health effects, such as drinking the occasional glass of wine.



Recent studies actually show that smoking decreases the risk of parkinsons. lawl.

But the guy with his pints doesn't force his pints upon someone else now does he? He doesn't prevent people with breathing problems from having a good time. The analogy between smoking and drinking fails.

Indeed exactly so. I have no problem with one ingesting an intoxicant, whether it be nicotine, caffine, ethanol, THC, or something else.

However, forcing others to ingest your intoxicat, via so-called second "hand smoke", is, as I stated above, nothing short of the same form of assault as if I pried a non-drinkers mouth open and poured even a bit of beer down their gullet.

Are there any non-drinking smoker's here who'd like to be forcibly subjected to my intoxicant of choice?

Virtually none, because of all the wind and such that delutes the smoke. However, its far more beneficial to the anti-smoking lobby to pretend that if you are within 15 feet of a smoker, outside, on a windy, rainy day, you will still get cancer.
Again, that's not what I sad! I just say, would smokers mind to not smoke on really busy places. I notice that it does happen often, where I have to walk through a curtain of smoke, or getting another cloud in my face. I never sad I mind people sitting away from the mass puffing away, that's what I ask smokers to do: don't smoke in the mass. I never sad I want to ban smoking in public all toghether, I just ask if they want it in a private space, whereither that's outdoor, indoor, privatly owned or public. Like Laerod sad: non-smokers, and even some smokers, don't like smoke. I just ask: please don't bother me with the smoke.

I can go to a pub and drink a pint that is arguably doing more damage than smoking is yet I cant light up on 'health grounds' - Fail. Yet you fail to notice that all the health-related arguments that have been made so far deal not with the health of the person choosing to smoke but rather with the person choosing NOT to smoke, who is nonetheless forced to by the smoker beside him or her.

Health and safety at work act - Fail. The ban had nothing to do with that act. It was all to do with cutting down the amount of smokers. Provide a source for your assertion. I'll do the same.

Here is the Ontario legislation. (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_94t10_e.htm) You'll notice various provisions dealing with the prohibition of the advertising of tobacco products, as well as provisions that set out where you can and can not smoke. Notice the wording of the latter provisions:

9.1 (1)Every home health-care worker has the right to request a person not to smoke tobacco in his or her presence while he or she is providing health care services.

Here is the Alberta legislation (http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/T03P8.cfm?frm_isbn=9780779727513).

The new Tobacco Reduction Act further prohibits smoking in public places and workplaces by removing the previous exception for adult only smoking areas, and by prohibiting smoking within a prescribed distance of a doorway, window or an air intake of public places.
There are a number of objectives in these two pieces of legislation. To cut down the promotion of tobacco products, to regulate where you can smoke, and to ensure workplace safety. Cutting down the number of smokers is not in and of itself a very achievable objective. Preventing people from getting addicted in the first place, is a somewhat workable goal, and ensuring that health standards realistically reflect the danger posed by second-hand smoke is a much more immediate focus.

As well, if you'd like to read some of the debates in the Legislature surrounding the smoking bans, you have only to access Hansard (http://www.assembly.ab.ca/pub/gdbook/Part4/page15.htm) to see what track politicans have been taking in regards to the legislation they have drafted.

People have to work in pubs due to lack of work - Fail.
It's not about having to work in pubs. It's about saying that your personal choice of a workplace can only impact the amount of danger you will be exposed to up to a certain point. I mean...it's obviously more dangerous to be a fire-fighter than a librarian, generally speaking, yes? A certain amount of danger cannot be legislated away as it is inherent in the profession. However, that does not mean that safety standards which provide for the minimum amount of essential proections cannot be implemented in ALL workplaces.



They probably just didnt want to work as dustmen/women, train to be plumbers/builders, take adult education classes to help gain qualifications that they didnt get when younger due to either a: Laziness or b: Dislexyia (sp?) - The latter i can sympathise with. End of the day.. bar work is not a last ditch job. It's not about latch ditch. It's about safety. You do not get higher safety standards in the trades simply because you earn more than a bartender (generally). You get safety standards appropriate to the dangers faced in the workplace, regardless of the workplace and regardless of the earning power of the worker.

I have a right to drown my sorrows and damage my liver and kidneys beyond repair in a pub but i cannot smoke because its a danger to others around me who have more chance of getting cancer from drinking redwine or walking down the street... Again, do what you want to yourself. You do not have the right to negatively impact the health of others.



Drinking is a danger to others around you.. have you ever witnessed a drunken brawl or had some drunken iditot swing a bottle/fist/chair at you?
Oddly enough, brawling whether intoxicated or not, is illegal. So is driving while intoxicated. So is serving someone who is clearly beyond the limit. Alcohol is not an excuse for rape, for murder, for running nude down the street. While someone can do all of these things under the influence of alcohol, it is not inevitable, nor is the harm. Filling a room with cigarette smoke inevitably impacts the health of the people working in that room.

Once again, your analogies fail, your claim to rights fails, and your total lack of anything resembling facts to back yourself up...fails.

You have amused me, however, with your attempt at mimicry.

Recent studies actually show that smoking decreases the risk of parkinsons. lawl.Can you provide a source for this that doesn't say "because they die before symptoms arise"?

Recent studies actually show that smoking decreases the risk of parkinsons. lawl.

Doesn't matter. Tobbacco smoke is forced on others, unlike most other intoxicants.

Virtually none, because of all the wind and such that delutes the smoke. However, its far more beneficial to the anti-smoking lobby to pretend that if you are within 15 feet of a smoker, outside, on a windy, rainy day, you will still get cancer.And the pro-smoking lobby pretends like the anti-smoking lobby actually says that...

Again, that's not what I sad! I just say, would smokers mind to not smoke on really busy places. I notice that it does happen often, where I have to walk through a curtain of smoke, or getting another cloud in my face. I never sad I mind people sitting away from the mass puffing away, that's what I ask smokers to do: don't smoke in the mass. I never sad I want to ban smoking in public all toghether, I just ask if they want it in a private space, whereither that's outdoor, indoor, privatly owned or public. Like Laerod sad: non-smokers, and even some smokers, don't like smoke. I just ask: please don't bother me with the smoke.

And that is what it all boils down to. You don't like it, so you call on us to to behave in a manor more suitible to your expectations. Now what about my expectations?

Doesn't matter. Tobbacco smoke is forced on others, unlike most other intoxicants.

Um...so non smokers lack legs? ;)

So you ignore the bit about irreperable liver and kidney damage and focus on that.

Lets get this straight:

SMOKING may cause CANCER
DRINKING does cause HEART, LIVER and KIDNEY problems

So why should i not be able to light up next to the guy on his 5th pint of the evening.. he's already done more damage than my one ciggy.

1) Your drinking does not inevitably impact the health of others.
2) We do not make it illegal to be unhealthy.
3) We do, however, make it illegal to encourage other people to engage in certain dangerous or high-risk behaviours. For example, you cannot have a tv advert that shows children having a blast drinking vodka.
4) I don't think you understand how to form an analogy. You see...the situations have to be similar.

And the pro-smoking lobby pretends like the anti-smoking lobby actually says that...

Its called exageration. Its fun.



However youre a fool if you really believe that the anti-smoking lobbey DOESNT exaggerate the affects of second hand smoke. Just like the smoking lobby pretends there isnt one. Its somewhere in between.

Can you provide a source for this that doesn't say "because they die before symptoms arise"?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070709171619.htm


:rolleyes:

Um...so non smokers lack legs? ;)If I go to a restaurant before a smoker arrives, I order my food, and then, as I begin to eat, people start smoking, why the fuck should I be the one leaving?

And that is what it all boils down to. You don't like it, so you call on us to to behave in a manor more suitible to your expectations. Now what about my expectations?
You're the one with the deadly addiction, now it's 1 thing that you practice such an addiction, I really don't mind, but would you mind not bothering other people with your deadly addiction? Just not caring about other people, is plain arrogant, a-social. I don't see why it would be so much to ask, that if you want to smoke you just wait untill you're away from the mass. Besides, it's not just not liking, ask astma-patients, or people with other breathing conditions. Remember that you're the one with the really bad habit, I am not. Why would you even want to bother people with your addiction?

Recent studies actually show that smoking decreases the risk of parkinsons. lawl.

Tobacco can be used as medicine...something aboriginal people have known for thousands of years. Tobacco as a poultice is fantastic for fighting infections. We also have spiritual uses for it. Luckily, most legislation being passed includes a provision for the traditional aboriginal uses of tobacco.

Coca leaves have more calcium than milk, more protein than a walnut, and contain vitamins A and E. If you want to talk about the knee-jerk banning of a medically and nutritionally valuable substance, you can make a much better argument for this, than for tobacco. Even aboriginal people recognised long ago that abusing tobacco was harmful.

I dont give a flying **** about American Legislation nor was I talking about American legislation.. Im English!

If you want i'll get my mother (who is a nurse) to get me the cancer rated, liver/kidney rates etc from the nhs database and pull the facts in here. i dont have access to it right now, what with being at home and all but rest assured... it is an infringment on my rights.. just as smoking is an infringement on yours.

The ban should not have been a ban but optional legislation.. That way, you 'could' in theory keep both parties happy. Before the ban, it was my choice to light up in a pub, your choice to walk into said pub. I'm not an asshole, if someone before the ban had asked me to move, then Iwould, simple as.

They would have been excercising their right to not have me smoke next to them and I would have been polite enough not to ignore them. Now im being forced to smoke outside because those people are to ignorant to ask and just force us ;)

If I go to a restaurant before a smoker arrives, I order my food, and then, as I begin to eat, people start smoking, why the fuck should I be the one leaving?

Bad luck :p

Look it goes both ways...and frankly I have no issue if people want smoke free environments...

but I also like to go to the boozer and have a pint fag and game of fucking pool...esp after a days hard fucking graft in the fucking office all right for fuck sake etc etc LOLOL

However youre a fool if you really believe that the anti-smoking lobbey DOESNT exaggerate the affects of second hand smoke. Just like the smoking lobby pretends there isnt one. Its somewhere in between.

There are always extremes, regardless of the issue. (Except when it comes to slinkys. Everyone loves a slinky.) The issue is nearly always somewhere in the middle. Arguing only at the fringes can be fun...but fairly futile.

Its called exageration. Its fun.



However youre a fool if you really believe that the anti-smoking lobbey DOESNT exaggerate the affects of second hand smoke. Just like the smoking lobby pretends there isnt one. Its somewhere in between.Then again, the non-smoking lobby doesn't pay scientists and lawyer-journalists to publish this kind of misinformation despite knowing it's bullshit.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070709171619.htm


:rolleyes:And here we have the answer to that:
The number of chewing tobacco users was small, but there was a suggestion of reduced risk associated with this product.
No need to smoke, just chew tobacco, and you'll get less parkinson's without having to force others to do the same. ;)

Um...so non smokers lack legs? ;)

Incorrect. If you light up, it's your responsibility to make sure you do so where you aren't comminting a physical assault. That's the classic "swinging fist" doctrine. (My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Likewise your "right" to smoke ends where my inhalations begin.)

There are always extremes, regardless of the issue. (Except when it comes to slinkys. Everyone loves a slinky.) The issue is nearly always somewhere in the middle. Arguing only at the fringes can be fun...but fairly futile.

Exactly, which is what I said last page. I know second hand smoke is harmful if Im indoors, which is why I only smoke indoors if Im with other smokers.


I however I not convinced that outside second hand smoke is that big of a deal.

The ban should not have been a ban but optional legislation.
I’d be more happy with that sort of thing also.

Have pub owners choose whether their watering holes are going to be smoking or non-smoking, and ensure that employees of non-smoking pubs are made fully aware of the consequences of working in a smoky environment, perhaps with some form of limited compensation.

Then again, the non-smoking lobby doesn't pay scientists and lawyer-journalists to publish this kind of misinformation despite knowing it's bullshit.

Oh please. Im sure they do. Any side with an agenda does.

The ban should not have been a ban but optional legislation.. That way, you 'could' in theory keep both parties happy. Before the ban, it was my choice to light up in a pub, your choice to walk into said pub. I'm not an asshole, if someone before the ban had asked me to move, then Iwould, simple as.

They would have been excercising their right to not have me smoke next to them and I would have been polite enough not to ignore them. Now im being forced to smoke outside because those people are to ignorant to ask and just force us ;)The problem is not the individual smoker, it was that the whole building was filled with smoke. So even when you were not near a smoker, you would sure as héll notice they were there. We're not saying your an asshole, we're just saying it's a-social to force non-smokers your habit. Why should you, the one with the deadly habit, should be the one with the protection? Those anti-smoke laws in bars aren't against you, they are for the rest.

It's something I see often, smokers feel personally offended (note: I'm not saying you're 1 of them) when people want anti-smoke laws. But what they don't understand, is that the law is against the smoke, not against the person. No one wants to make your nicotine addiction illegal, they're just fed up with the smoke.

Oh please. Im sure they do. Any side with an agenda does.JunkScience is an invention of the Tobacco industry. I'd love to see the non-smoker lobby equivalent.

Incorrect. If you light up, it's your responsibility to make sure you do so where you aren't comminting a physical assault. That's the classic "swinging fist" doctrine. (My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Likewise your "right" to smoke ends where my inhalations begin.)


Well then you'd best not invade my space if I'm having a fag.

Sorry but I really do not like the tone of your post. Are you actually proposing physical violence after 2 light hearted posts?

Please get a grip...

No need to smoke, just chew tobacco, and you'll get less parkinson's without having to force others to do the same. ;)

Indeed so. Or use a vaporiser.

I'll point out here, as a point of non-bias, that I like oral tobacco.

I dont give a flying **** about American Legislation nor was I talking about American legislation.. Im English! For an Englishman, you show a shocking lack of geographical knowledge when it comes to the former colonies...Ontario and Alberta are provinces in Canada. If you want to argue things from a UK perspective, please do...I'm not going to look up the legislation, or peep in the Hansard for you.

If you want i'll get my mother (who is a nurse) to get me the cancer rated, liver/kidney rates etc from the nhs database and pull the facts in here. i dont have access to it right now, what with being at home and all but rest assured... it is an infringment on my rights.. just as smoking is an infringement on yours. How sweet...mommy will post for you when she gets back from work.

The ban should not have been a ban but optional legislation.. That way, you 'could' in theory keep both parties happy. Before the ban, it was my choice to light up in a pub, your choice to walk into said pub. I'm not an asshole, if someone before the ban had asked me to move, then Iwould, simple as.

They would have been excercising their right to not have me smoke next to them and I would have been polite enough not to ignore them. Now im being forced to smoke outside because those people are to ignorant to ask and just force us ;)
Please address the workplace-safety arguments that have been addressed to you. Is your only assertion that you can 'choose' to work somewhere unsafe or not? If so, please explain how you can:
a) support other health and safety workplace regulations or in the alternative,
b) how free choice, absent such health and safety regulations will ensure public safety.

JunkScience is an invention of the Tobacco industry. I'd love to see the non-smoker lobby equivalent.

Wow.


JunkScience has been around for a loooong time. Science is always used to push an agenda. "Scientists" used to publish genetic "proof" back in the day that showed blacks were inferior. Id hardly say its an invention of the tobacco industry.


Are you seriously going to deny that anti-smoking lobbies exaggerate things, fudge statistics, and hire people to help push their agenda? Because itd be naive to believe that ANY group doesnt do that.

The problem is not the individual smoker, it was that the whole building was filled with smoke. So even when you were not near a smoker, you would sure as héll notice they were there. We're not saying your an asshole, we're just saying it's a-social to force non-smokers your habit. Why should you, the one with the deadly habit, should be the one with the protection? Those anti-smoke laws in bars aren't against you, they are for the rest.

It's something I see often, smokers feel personally offended (note: I'm not saying you're 1 of them) when people want anti-smoke laws. But what they don't understand, is that the law is against the smoke, not against the person. You can still enjoy nicotine in public, just not with the smoke.

Thank you, my analogy works now. Why should i the one with a deadly habbit force it on others... Because the vast majority of people around me, although not forcing it on me, are already taking part in a far more deadly past-time that has direct consequences. Not, possible consequences.

Oh please. Im sure they do. Any side with an agenda does.

Assuredly. But pure economics should convince you that the side with the most to lose financially, is the side that is going to invest the most capital in making their case. There is a public policy desire to cut down on smoking and health-related costs due to smoking, but in no way can those desires exceed the desire of the tobacco industry to its profit.

One side is getting more 'fringe' misinformation out there, and you know who it is.

Well then you'd best not invade my space if I'm having a fag.

Sorry but I really do not like the tone of your post. Are you actually proposing physical violence after 2 light hearted posts?

Please get a grip...

Read what I said again.

If you light up where you force me to inhale your secondhand smoke, you have assaulted me.

I proposed no violence, but accused smokers of commiting violence.

Again, your "right" to smoke ends where my right not to inhale your intoxicants begins. Just like my right to drink ends where your right not to have me force drin ks down your throat begins.

The only violence being done here is by smokers.

How sweet...mommy will post for you when she gets back from work.



Thats not what I said. FUCK OFF. As i don't work for the nhs, i dont have access to the database my mother does! Take your anti-smoking we are holier and better than thou attitudes and eff off.

I am fed up of people telling me where and when I can do something as simple as smoking. If you are really worried about cancer then smoking is the least of your worries. Seriously, it really is.

Thank you, my analogy works now. Why should i the one with a deadly habbit force it on others... Because the vast majority of people around me, although not forcing it on me, are already taking part in a far more deadly past-time that has direct consequences. Not, possible consequences.
:headbang: No, it does not, 1 glass of beer a day isn't deadly. Even more, drinkers do not force drinking onto other people. And the fact that they even would engage in a deadly habit, isn't an excuse to force people ANOTHER deadly habit.
I am fed up of people telling me where and when I can do something as simple as smoking. If you are really worried about cancer then smoking is the least of your worries. Seriously, it really is.
And we are fed up with people like you who don't give a f*ck about the people around them, and just keep on bothering them with there smoke. I don't even care if the smoke comes from a sigarrete or not, also when my neighbore would start burning leaves in his garden, I would get angry.
People don't hate smokers, people hate a-social pricks.

Wow.


JunkScience has been around for a loooong time. Science is always used to push an agenda. "Scientists" used to publish genetic "proof" back in the day that showed blacks were inferior. Id hardly say its an invention of the tobacco industry.Look up who founded TASSC and JunkScience. Here's the guy that runs it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy)
Are you seriously going to deny that anti-smoking lobbies exaggerate things, fudge statistics, and hire people to help push their agenda? Because itd be naive to believe that ANY group doesnt do that.I'm denying that they do it to the extent that the pro-tobacco lobby does it, and unless you can find me concrete evidence that there actually is an equivalent to JunkScience that receives comparable amount of coverage and support, then that point stands.

I can go to a pub and drink a pint that is arguably doing more damage than smoking is yet I cant light up on 'health grounds' - Fail.
Not a Fail: It more to do with other peoples health, smoking effect other people in enclosed spaces, debate this if you think

[/QUOTE=Exetoniarpaccount;13634545]Health and safety at work act - Fail. The ban had nothing to do with that act. It was all to do with cutting down the amount of smokers.[/QUOTE]
Partially a fail: The act was put in both to protect workers, and reduce the amount of people working

People have to work in pubs due to lack of work - Fail. They probably just didnt want to work as dustmen/women, train to be plumbers/builders, take adult education classes to help gain qualifications that they didnt get when younger due to either a: Laziness or b: Dyslexia (sp?) - The latter i can sympathise with. End of the day.. bar work is not a last ditch job.
Not a fail: Bar work is one of many last ditch jobs, it hard to become a dust man (there actually well paid for what they do:p) adult education class cost money which with out a job they cant afford. and dyskexia is not an excuse for poor grades (i am dyslexic, found out when i was 15, and i got goodish grades). There are only a limited number of place in training courses.

[/QUOTE=Exetoniarpaccount;13634545]I have a right to drown my sorrows and damage my liver and kidneys beyond repair in a pub but i cannot smoke because its a danger to others around me who have more chance of getting cancer from drinking redwine or walking down the street...

Drinking is a danger to others around you.. have you ever witnessed a drunken brawl or had some drunken iditot swing a bottle/fist/chair at you?[/QUOTE]

First source for the text in bold. Secondly you have a choich in both not to drink redsine, or take a car down the street (most car have air filtion system)
As for the drunken brawl, it not the drink hurting you it the person doing the drinking :D If a person drunk to the point of losing control then they are breaking the law and so is the person who serve them. It is illegal to be intoxicated and it is also illegal to serve intoxicated people (with a personal fine of up to £5000) so you wrong

Read what I said again.

If you light up where you force me to inhale your secondhand smoke, you have assaulted me.

I proposed no violence, but accused smokers of commiting violence.

Again, your "right" to smoke ends where my right not to inhale your intoxicants begins. Just like my right to drink ends where your right not to have me force drin ks down your throat begins.

The only violence being done here is by smokers.

By that reasoning, your right to drive a car ends where my rights not inhale yor exhaust begins.

Think about how stupid that analogy is when everyday you walk down a busy street you are just mere meters away from deadly car fumes!

By that reasoning, your right to drive a car ends where my rights not inhale yor exhaust begins.

Think about how stupid that analogy is when everyday you walk down a busy street you are just mere meters away from deadly car fumes!
There is a difference between a deadly habit just for pleasure, and a neccesity for today's world. Besides, the fact there is already something really dirty, isn't an excuse to make it even more dirty.
O and for the record, I AM for car-free city centers.

Thats not what I said. FUCK OFF. As i don't work for the nhs, i dont have access to the database my mother does! Take your anti-smoking we are holier and better than thou attitudes and eff off.

I am fed up of people telling me where and when I can do something as simple as smoking. If you are really worried about cancer then smoking is the least of your worries. Seriously, it really is.

You might want to check out the One Stop Rule Shop on the main page of General. You're not going to last here very long if you resort to flaming.

It is not unreasonable to expect you to support your position with some sort of actual coherent argument and facts to back yourself up with. You don't need to access the nhs database to do that.

So far, your responses have been reactionary, angry, and riddled with false analogies. So I'll help you out.

1) Make an argument. Back it up.
2) When someone rebuts that argument, you get the chance to answer. Again, back yourself up.
3) Repeating the same statements over and over again, without actually dealing with the substance of other people's arguments shows that you either CAN'T deal with those arguments, or you aren't actually reading them. Both suggest that it isn't worth our time to debate you.

Enjoy NSG.

By that reasoning, your right to drive a car ends where my rights not inhale yor exhaust begins.

Think about how stupid that analogy is when everyday you walk down a busy street you are just mere meters away from deadly car fumes!

Indeed. And it is not stupid. How is your causing me harm by striking me any different from your causing my harm by poisoning me?

Are you seriously going to deny that anti-smoking lobbies exaggerate things, fudge statistics, and hire people to help push their agenda? Because itd be naive to believe that ANY group doesnt do that.

Bah! You can get statistics to say anything you want.

In Montreal there was a poll that was conducted where a man would walk into a store and ask some questions in english. 8 times out of 10, he was answered in english, the other 2 times the store clerk got someone else to answer the questions. That poll was sold to an english newspaper and a french newspaper. The headlines:

English - "20% of customers aren't served in their language of choice!"

French- "French in decline, 80% of the workplace speaks in englsih!"

And both went on to say that things need to change.

I looked into the study and found my own statistic: 100% of the questions were answered in a bilingual city.

So you don't have to fudge numbers to show smoking in a bad light.

Gothic Bob Ok, so i overexagurated the risks involved with drinking redwine.. but studies to show it can cause breast cancer.

20-30 years ago, if you were dislexic you were considered dumb. - thus no chance of a decent education.

People on means tested benefit (JSA and up) are entitled to FREE adult education courses (not uni courses of course but a-levels gcse's etc - yes)

As for limited nuber of places. There are more and more becoming avaliable year in year out. It just depends whgat you want to do.

As to the barwork thing.. A job in a supermarket is last-ditch.. if you can get barwork its because you dont want to work in a supermarke etc.. (this goes for students) especially seemings most bar jobs i know of are still only minimum wage.

You might want to check out the One Stop Rule Shop on the main page of General. You're not going to last here very long if you resort to flaming.

It is not unreasonable to expect you to support your position with some sort of actual coherent argument and facts to back yourself up with. You don't need to access the nhs database to do that.

So far, your responses have been reactionary, angry, and riddled with false analogies. So I'll help you out.

1) Make an argument. Back it up.
2) When someone rebuts that argument, you get the chance to answer. Again, back yourself up.
3) Repeating the same statements over and over again, without actually dealing with the substance of other people's arguments shows that you either CAN'T deal with those arguments, or you aren't actually reading them. Both suggest that it isn't worth our time to debate you.

Enjoy NSG.

I did not flame you, you flamed me, i simply in no uncvertain terms told you to back off! Fuck off is not a flame, aww gonna get mommy to come here and post for you is - especially when that is not what i said.

The nhs database contains the facts that have not been doctored by either the non-smokers or the pro-smokers. Its just a list of deaths (in numbers) and probable causes (in percentages) that is more up to date than last years stuff.. though i could find that now.

As far as i was aware, i was repeating my argument as i consider yours the same thing worded differently over and over again..

I'll get a proper rebuttle up.

ok


EDIT: Im looking through some stuff now, the WHO report says that 90% of lung cancer deaths are smoking related but I did not see any statistical information to back that up.. so im slightly confused that you want me to get facts supporting my argument when a WHO report gives a statistic with no factual statistics to back it up.

Im stumped on this so, i'll officially issue an appology, take back my claims and sit on the fence until someone with hours of free time can add 1+1+1+1 and get 4 instead of 3,5,7,8 or even 9!

Recent studies actually show that smoking decreases the risk of parkinsons. lawl.

it also lower prostate cancer, or so a doctor friend told me

By that reasoning, your right to drive a car ends where my rights not inhale yor exhaust begins.

Think about how stupid that analogy is when everyday you walk down a busy street you are just mere meters away from deadly car fumes!

Balance the rights, and the necessity, and you see why the car/smoker analogy doesn't work very well.

A smoker gains very little from indulging his or her habit, other than satisfying his or her addiction. It can, at best, calm a person or act as an appetite suppressant (as pointed out earlier). These are not extreme benefits. Now weigh the cost of the smoke to a non-smoker (again, I won't speak to smoking outside, I'll focus on smoking within a confined space/workplace). Prolonged, habitual exposure is dangerous. No sane person would consent to smoking that much. The benefits to the smoker do not even remotely outweigh the detriment to the non-smoker.

Now look at driving. What are the benefits? Well, even if you only take into consideration the situations where one HAS to drive, they are considerable. Driving enables you to access employment beyond walking distance from your home, allows you to access markets, schools and entertainment. Transportation on a general level ensures that we are supplied with food and necessaries of life. In fact, it can be argued that without this transportation system, people could not live in urban centres. The costs to the pedestrian are substantial. Vehicle-related deaths (direct), exposure to pollution (emissions) and so forth. As I've pointed out, there have been many attempts to curtail the harm of vehicles, but an outright ban is simply not possible yet. Without cars/transport, you literally could not live in an urban area. The benefits of transport most certainly outweigh the detriment to those exposed to the pollution. The hope here is that more will be done to cut down that pollution.

Nonetheless, saying that 'cars are worse' does not change the fact that we can do something about second-hand smoke NOW, and there is little justification for inaction.

I did not flame you, you flamed me, i simply in no uncvertain terms told you to back off! Fuck off is not a flame, aww gonna get mommy to come here and post for you is - especially when that is not what i said. Well you can always report this conversation to Moderation and see what is, and what is not flaming. Or you can read the One Stop Rules Shop and figure it out.


I'll get a proper rebuttle up.

That would be nice.

The ban should not have been a ban but optional legislation. That way, you 'could' in theory keep both parties happy. Before the ban, it was my choice to light up in a pub, your choice to walk into said pub. I'm not an asshole, if someone before the ban had asked me to move, then I would, simple as.

They would have been excercising their right to not have me smoke next to them and I would have been polite enough not to ignore them. Now im being forced to smoke outside because those people are to ignorant to ask and just force us ;)

i be honest, i agree with you here, if people want non-smoking pub in england then there would have been some!

it also lower prostate cancer, or so a doctor friend told me

I heard if you smoke two cigarettes in a row you can fly.

i be honest, i agree with you here, if people want non-smoking pub in england then there would have been some!

Yes, the free market did wonders for labour, health and safety standards during the Industrial Revolution. Good times. Good times. We should try that again.

I heard if you smoke two cigarettes in a row you can fly.
Shhhh, you need the "secret ingredient" for that :p

Yes, the free market did wonders for labour, health and safety standards during the Industrial Revolution. Good times. Good times. We should try that again.

That sarcastic in its response means that despite my earlier actions I should not be debating with you. the comment to which he replied was a very fair and just statement and your sacracstic response to his reamrk shows that you are clearly just anti-smoker.


This isn't about health and safety its about rights fundamamentally. I stated that it woulkd have been better to have optional legislation. He agreed, you slam him for that.

At the end of the day, If it was down to the choice of the owner, then we would have non smoking and smoking pubs. There would be choice. Working in a pub pre ban has nothing to do with health and safety legislation and verything to do with its your choice. Don't wnt to work in a smokey environment, go work in a supermarket where you are protected by by already existing health and safety regulation.

Don't want to drink ina smoking pub or club, find a non smoking one.. With only about 25% (I think.. don';t quote me on that) of the population of England being smokers, non-smoking pubds would probably have outweighed smoking pubds ging freedom of choice to all.

Instead, we now have a situation where I can't smoke in a pub, any pb, because people demanded it, forcing me out into the cold or on to the street in some cases like a third class citizen. Why is that fair when as a drinker and a smoker im butting up the nhs and when i do get a job, im effectively paying for the health service and other things (like war0 3 times through my income tax/NI contributions, and the tax I pay on alcohol and on tobacco.

Being a smoker and a drinker and soon to be a person who is caught by the abolishment of the 10p tax level I find the current Government abhorrent. they have basically made me have to stay below the poverty line until i become qualified to do something that earns me more money simply because of my life choice and not wanting to super tax the small percentage of people who are super rich!

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

Agreed!

*lights up a Marlboro Red*

Gothic Bob Ok, so i over exagurated the risks involved with drinking red wine.. but studies to show it can cause breast cancer. And study show that drinking one/two glass a day prolong life. Cigerattes lowers risk for certain illness. It all in the study you read.

20-30 years ago, if you were dislexic you were considered dumb. - thus no chance of a decent education.
There some truth to that, but point still stand. to be classed as dyslexic you have to have an i.q above average, so that should take out the disadvantage of reading and then rereading everything.


People on means tested benefit (JSA and up) are entitled to FREE adult education courses (not uni courses of course but a-levels gcse's etc - yes)
sorry i did not know that point withdrawn

As for limited number of places. There are more and more becoming available year in year out. It just depends what you want to do.
even if more place are becoming available they are still limited and what if there nothing in what you want to do?

As to the barwork thing.. A job in a supermarket is last-ditch.. if you can get barwork its because you dont want to work in a supermarket etc.. (this goes for students) especially seemings most bar jobs i know of are still only minimum wage.
And Supermarket are open all night? there may be some (i work in a 24 hour store myself) but not many.

That sarcastic in its response means that despite my earlier actions I should not be debating with you. the comment to which he replied was a very fair and just statement and your sacracstic response to his reamrk shows that you are clearly just anti-smoker.


This isn't about health and safety its about rights fundamamentally. I stated that it woulkd have been better to have optional legislation. He agreed, you slam him for that.

At the end of the day, If it was down to the choice of the owner, then we would have non smoking and smoking pubs. There would be choice. Working in a pub pre ban has nothing to do with health and safety legislation and verything to do with its your choice. Don't wnt to work in a smokey environment, go work in a supermarket where you are protected by by already existing health and safety regulation.

Don't want to drink ina smoking pub or club, find a non smoking one.. With only about 25% (I think.. don';t quote me on that) of the population of England being smokers, non-smoking pubds would probably have outweighed smoking pubds ging freedom of choice to all.

Instead, we now have a situation where I can't smoke in a pub, any pb, because people demanded it, forcing me out into the cold or on to the street in some cases like a third class citizen. Why is that fair when as a drinker and a smoker im butting up the nhs and when i do get a job, im effectively paying for the health service and other things (like war0 3 times through my income tax/NI contributions, and the tax I pay on alcohol and on tobacco.

Being a smoker and a drinker and soon to be a person who is caught by the abolishment of the 10p tax level I find the current Government abhorrent. they have basically made me have to stay below the poverty line until i become qualified to do something that earns me more money simply because of my life choice and not wanting to super tax the small percentage of people who are super rich!

You've got it all wrong.

Boozing does not inflict it's intoxicant on others while smoking does.

Would you force every random person within 5 meters of you to drink when you are drinking? Because that's exactly the same thing you inflict on others when you smoke.

Read what I said again.

If you light up where you force me to inhale your secondhand smoke, you have assaulted me.

I proposed no violence, but accused smokers of commiting violence.

Again, your "right" to smoke ends where my right not to inhale your intoxicants begins. Just like my right to drink ends where your right not to have me force drin ks down your throat begins.

The only violence being done here is by smokers.

Sorry but you've lost the plot here slightly.

I force you to do nothing. You have legs use them. Or politely ask the person to move.

Or are you of the mind that you should not have to ask?

Smoker committing violence..ok...so what are you doing about cars, buses, airplanes etc .... you cannot have it both ways.

Give me liberty or give me death!

Well, with regards to smoking, first one, then the other.

Read again: I mean places where lots of people are pretty close toghether, like I care you smoke in a quiet park, but I do care when lots of people are comming together in that park, you're in the middle and you want to light a sigarrete. Thén I do mind. Again, I don't care if you're inside our outside, smoking is fine by me, just do it private.

I live in such a place, Holland, and I ám bothered when random people blow smoke in my face because I sure as hell notice it, especially because of my airways (and it's worse in spring). Every little less bit of dirt in other people's faces help, because all those little bits accumulate to a large amount. What I mean isn't that hard, I don't care if you smoke, just do it privatly. What's so strange about asking that?

Okay, you've said "random people blowing smoke in my face" -- that's not smoking's fault, that's the asshole smoker's fault. Assholes abound on all sides of any contentious issue.

Sigged :D

*awed* Now THAT is high praise!

You've got it all wrong.

Boozing does not inflict it's intoxicant on others while smoking does.

Would you force every random person within 5 meters of you to drink when you are drinking? Because that's exactly the same thing you inflict on others when you smoke.

In rebuttle, do you honestly have the right to force me not to smoke through law?

Is it just to penalise those supporting the government through tax because those paying less tax and in the majority demand it.

Is it right to lable smoking products with various warnings that everybody with the tiniest amount of common sence knows but not another that is just as dangerous if not more dangerous and less people know the dangers of.

(To be clear on the aabove point, most lAables on ciggy packets are aimed at the smoker and not at the risk to others eg: Smoking kills, smoking is highly addictive, don't smoke)

Is it right to make a citizen feel third class and to give them less right to smoke than a convict (smoking is still allowed in prisons.. eat that one health and safety campaigners)

Is it right to make said citizen pay over the top for the product you are telling them not to smoke to help fund your wars?

Okay, you've said "random people blowing smoke in my face" -- that's not smoking's fault, that's the asshole smoker's fault. Assholes abound on all sides of any contentious issue.
If you would've read one of my later posts, you could've seen the following statement:
People don't hate smokers, people hate a-social pricks ;)
Ofcourse I don't want the good, willing and friendly smoker to not suffer under the retard smokers. But well, if it's needed...
In rebuttle, do you honestly have the right to force me not to smoke through law?
You don't understand it do you?? We don't want to ban smoking in general, we want to ban smoking in certain places to protect certain people. Ofcourse we would rather not have the laws, but unfortunatly, some smokers are a-social pricks who don't care about there fellow man next to them who is irritated by there smoke. Those laws protect those people, because they deserve protection.

I heard if you smoke two cigarettes in a row you can fly.
well i kinda deserved that, but it was relanvent to what i replied to, there is a lot of evidence of fag helping treat and prevent certain illness

Yes, the free market did wonders for labor, health and safety standards during the Industrial Revolution. Good times. Good times. We should try that again.

I not talking about health and safety standard, i am talking about what the punters want, if there was a market for a smoke free pub then there would have been smoke free pub. Market forces my darling. Oh and if there were some pub were smoke free and some not, Smoking pubs would have to have higher wages to get people to work in them, i work in a 24hour store, to work night shift i get an higher wage, same theory here

That sarcastic in its response means that despite my earlier actions I should not be debating with you. the comment to which he replied was a very fair and just statement and your sacracstic response to his reamrk shows that you are clearly just anti-smoker.

"I'm not going to debate you! You used sarcasm! Except now I'm going to go on a large diatribe because I do actually want to debate! But I'm keeping an eye on you and your sarcastic ways! Meanie!"


This isn't about health and safety its about rights fundamamentally. Yes, and health and safety can be characterised as competing rights. Glad you're following along.

I stated that it woulkd have been better to have optional legislation. He agreed, you slam him for that. False. I slammed him for claiming that, "if people want non-smoking pub in england then there would have been some" (direct quote). I pointed out, in a sarcastic manner (for which I am well-known) that his claim is a little unsubstantiated considering historical precedents. He is certainly free to rebut my sarcastic assertion with some facts about how non-smoking establishments were in fact present in the absence of anti-smoking legislation.

Wow, it's like I'm giving you a course in how to debate. I wonder if I should demand renumeration?


At the end of the day, If it was down to the choice of the owner, then we would have non smoking and smoking pubs. Now YOU can go find proof that this was in fact the case prior to anti-smoking legislation. That would do wonders for your argument. Just claiming it to be so doesn't really help.


There would be choice. Working in a pub pre ban has nothing to do with health and safety legislation and verything to do with its your choice. And yet I've already rebutted your unsubstantiated claims with information pulled directly from existing anti-smoking legislation which indeed focus on heath and safety as well as the stated goal of tobacco reduction. Darn it all! Now you have to find evidence to support YOUR claim that it was really just about 'choice'.


Don't wnt to work in a smokey environment, go work in a supermarket where you are protected by by already existing health and safety regulation.As I pointed out before, (you failed to rebut this as well) health and safety standards are particular to a workplace only to the extent that the particular workplace is unique. So, the standards set in a supermarket are going to be different than the standards set in a public pool. Nonetheless, there are no workplaces that do not have some sort of health and safety standards to live up to.

That you do not feel smoking is enough of a hazard to warrant legislative intervention is clear, if not well argued. The point of minimum health and safety standards is that everyone is entitled to protection, regardless of where they work. We do not allow you to contract out of health and safety regulations...why should we allow you to 'choose' not to be protected by health and safety regulations?

Don't want to drink ina smoking pub or club, find a non smoking one.. With only about 25% (I think.. don';t quote me on that) of the population of England being smokers, non-smoking pubds would probably have outweighed smoking pubds ging freedom of choice to all. Provide a source.

Instead, we now have a situation where I can't smoke in a pub, any pb, because people demanded it, forcing me out into the cold or on to the street in some cases like a third class citizen.

Yes, poor you. Forced into the cold. Let's forget that you could 'choose' to not smoke, and therefore not be 'forced into the cold'.

What? It's you nattering on about 'choice' all the time...you choose to smoke in the cold. Cuts both ways, no?

Why is that fair when as a drinker and a smoker im butting up the nhs and when i do get a job, im effectively paying for the health service and other things (like war0 3 times through my income tax/NI contributions, and the tax I pay on alcohol and on tobacco.Once again, do what you like with your health. You don't get to mess with the health of others.

Being a smoker and a drinker and soon to be a person who is caught by the abolishment of the 10p tax level I find the current Government abhorrent. they have basically made me have to stay below the poverty line until i become qualified to do something that earns me more money simply because of my life choice and not wanting to super tax the small percentage of people who are super rich!
You choose to smoke and drink and work for a low wage...you've stated these are life choices, yes? Then how is it that the Government is forcing you to do anything? You've made your choices. Live with them.

That is what you are essentially telling everyone else. It'd be nice if you were somewhat consistent.

how dull.


Yes, because believing in rights and freedom makes you dull.

Do you actually want to live in a society like that?

I would MUCH sooner live in a society where there is too little regulation than in a society where the government dictates your every thought and action.

well i kinda deserved that, but it was relanvent to what i replied to, there is a lot of evidence of fag helping treat and prevent certain illness Yes, and my statement was relevant in that I provided absolutely no proof for it :P


I not talking about health and safety standard, i am talking about what the punters want, if there was a market for a smoke free pub then there would have been smoke free pub. Market forces my darling.

Awesome! Then you can provide me with a source showing me how many smoke-free pubs there were prior to prohibition! Thanks in advance:) You see, I'm not about to take it on faith that market forces act the way you claim they do my little buttercup.


Oh and if there were some pub were smoke free and some not, Smoking pubs would have to have higher wages to get people to work in them, i work in a 24hour store, to work night shift i get an higher wage, same theory here
Except your theory gets all messy when you start looking at situations where unemployment is high. Then, wages depreciate (generally) and you don't have to work that hard to get people to take employment in less than ideal situations.

Geez...it's like 'the market' is all complex and shifty and stuff!

Parents should have the right to put their kids in their cars and hotbox them with cigarette smoke.. So what if it's unhealthy? They're their kids and they own them. I say let them mix bleach in with their baby formula too.

I would MUCH sooner live in a society where there is too little regulation than in a society where the government dictates your every thought and action.

Yes yes, die on your feet rather than live on your knees and all that. But that's not what I asked you. Refer once again to that post. I asked if you'd like to live in a society whereby you as the individual were ultimately responsible for ensuring your own health and safety in all situations...whether eating at a restaurant, visiting the doctor, taking your car to a mechanic etc...

Or would you prefer that administrative bodies with public resources, ensure that certain standards are in place, monitored, and enforced? As is presently the case?

Parents should have the right to put their kids in their cars and hotbox them with cigarette smoke.. So what if it's unhealthy? They're their kids and they own them. I say let them mix bleach in with their baby formula too.

Totally! The free market will allow those children to choose other parents!

Of course I would prefer there to be extremely basic regulations established...any logical person would. I'm not an anarchist. But I really feel that many laws surrounding alcohol and tobacco are overbearing, and that simply because something could be dangerous is not a valid reason to ban it outright.

Of course I would prefer there to be extremely basic regulations established...any logical person would. I'm not an anarchist. But I really feel that many laws surrounding alcohol and tobacco are overbearing, and that simply because something could be dangerous is not a valid reason to ban it outright.

Well okay, let's look specifically at what provisions regarding alcohol and tobacco you oppose, and why. It'd be nice to have an actual discussion rather than 'OMG MY RIGHTS AS A SMOKER' and 'OMG SMOKERS ARE KILLING ME!'

Alcohol: which laws do you oppose, and why?

Tobacco: which laws do you opposed, and why?

Smoking activist have to get their heads out of their fucking asses and realize that some people fucking hate smoke.

That is all. (Emphasis is very much required)

So you ignore the bit about irreperable liver and kidney damage and focus on that.

Lets get this straight:

SMOKING may cause CANCER
DRINKING does cause HEART, LIVER and KIDNEY problems

So why should i not be able to light up next to the guy on his 5th pint of the evening.. he's already done more damage than my one ciggy.

This has got to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever seen. "He's doing something bad to himself, so I should have the right to do other bad things to him!" By that "logic," you couldn't be charged with assault for punching someone in the face after they fell down and broke their leg, because, hey, a broken leg is worse than a black eye! Does that honestly make sense to you?

There is considerable less stigma upon cigars; less advertising restriction, and less taxing.

Totally! The free market will allow those children to choose other parents!

Note to self: do not take a sip of water while reading NSG. *wipes off keyboard*

This has got to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever seen. "He's doing something bad to himself, so I should have the right to do other bad things to him!" By that "logic," you couldn't be charged with assault for punching someone in the face after they fell down and broke their leg, because, hey, a broken leg is worse than a black eye! Does that honestly make sense to you?

See? This is an analogy that works.

Considerin that it is the poor and racial minorities smoke the most any bans on smoking, and in fact all taxes on smoking, are a form of race and class warfare instituted by rich white Jetta and Prius-driving liberals. I've always know that racism has run pretty deep in this country but to discriminate against people on the color of their lungs is a new low in my book.

Besides, second-hand smoke is only a problem for thos who freely choose to remain in the vicinity of it. If you don't like smoke in bars then find or build one that prohibits it. This is about personal choice, damnit.

And had any of you considered the health benefits of smoking? They do exist. Smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, probably due to the stimulant effect of the nicotine. Seriously, non-smokers run around twice the risk of those diseases. It also helps schizophrenics by improving their alterness and cognitive functions, making them more lucid for a short while. And did I mention that smoking reduces ulcerative colitis and has been shown to interfere with Kaposi's sarcoma, breast cancer, preeclampsia, and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma. Again, the nicotine is the likely cause.

So you see, smoking is not just abou personal choice but it also has many health benefits.

I not talking about health and safety standard, i am talking about what the punters want, if there was a market for a smoke free pub then there would have been smoke free pub. Market forces my darling. Oh and if there were some pub were smoke free and some not, Smoking pubs would have to have higher wages to get people to work in them, i work in a 24hour store, to work night shift i get an higher wage, same theory here

Imagine a place where there would be smoking and non-smoking pubs. Picture it. Now, guess what would happen to the non-smoking bars when someone realizes they are discriminating (against smokers) in a public environment. Imagine the massive lawsuits and the closing of said non-smoking pubs.

Free market has failed, yet again.

Imagine a place where there would be smoking and non-smoking pubs. Picture it. Now, guess what would happen to the non-smoking bars when someone realizes they are discriminating (against smokers) in a public environment. Imagine the massive lawsuits and the closing of said non-smoking pubs.

Free market has failed, yet again.
Well actually the non-smoking pubs would just close due to lack of business. See, in my home state many bars experienced huge declines in business from which they have yet to recover. Many have closed and others have lost up to 30% revenue or more. That's why we started theater nights where the bar becomes the stage and the audience the players. Now there are some, mostly folks that listen to Air America, that say it's not legitimate theater and that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of it. No different from talk radio, just lower tech.

As requested by Neesika:

A few alcohol laws I am opposed to, or at least feel deserve re-evaluation and maybe editing by Congress:
-I know its a very common one, but the drinking age of 21 without exception is something I am against. I think that my nation, (the USA), should adopt a policy more similar to that of Finland or Norway, with a 'graduated' drinking age, perhaps 18 or so for beer and cider, (or anything with an alcohol level below roughly 20% ABV), and 20 for anything above that.
-Alcohol in a vehicle. I am 100% against drunk driving, and know people who were hit by drunk drivers, so I have a personal problem with people who do such things. But there is what I consider to be a ridiculous law where I live: even if you are over 21, you cannot have an open bottle of alcohol ANYWHERE in the vehicle. I can clearly understand why this law exists, and I agree with its intentions totally, but here is the issue: people who are out at a restaurant and order a nice bottle of wine are almost forced to finish the bottle to avoid wasting it, and THEN, after drinking all of it, drive home, as opposed to drinking a sensible amount, sealing it, putting it in the trunk, and then driving home. If they are still within the legal limit for driving, then I do not see the problem with allowing people to do this.
-Blue Laws. I live in New England, and they are all over the place up here. There are too many to name, but most people probably know all about them. If not, I will elaborate on this if I am asked.

Tobacco Laws:
-Smoking ban outdoors. If a person cannot smoke outdoors, where should they? Obviously, smoking near a school or something else of the sort is an obvious exception. For example, there is a town in Connecticut where you cannot smoke ANYWHERE outdoors , including in your own backyard.
-Smoking ban in bars. I've already explained this in a previous post.
-Ban on advertising on lighters - this may be a state law or a federal law, I am not certain, but where I live it is now illegal for cigarette companies to place their logo or symbol on lighters. Why? I can understand why they shouldn't be allowed to have billboards advertising tobacco near a school or something, but on lighters? That's like saying you can't advertise Budweiser during Nascar, (although I do not personally care for either).


I'm sure that there are more I could think of. These are just off of the top of my head.

This has got to be one of the silliest arguments I have ever seen. "He's doing something bad to himself, so I should have the right to do other bad things to him!" By that "logic," you couldn't be charged with assault for punching someone in the face after they fell down and broke their leg, because, hey, a broken leg is worse than a black eye! Does that honestly make sense to you?

What the fuck is with all the assult analogies.. its a pathetic.. (ok, so my argument is null and voided by that but hey.)

Fact is, smoking is a fact of life. People want to stamp it out. Forcibly doing this is pissing people off.

It was fine to smoke in a pub until the nanny state said it was dangerous to smokers and those around them.

As for H&S legislation.. do ear defenders really protect from noisy environnments. Hell for that matter, why are the Government allowed to get roads dug up with noisy machinery which damage my hearing as a pedestrian yet the worker gets his ears protected.

Go to a pub - expect to be in a smokey environment till the ban. Walk down a street, expect to breath in god knows what. Go to a club to drink with your mates and subject yourself to loud noise levels even if all you want to do is drink (still applicable due to the low take up on 24 hour drinking)

Where is the difference... Loud noise being afflicted on you if you dont dance just so you can have a drink.. - answer - don't go.

Pollution from cars etc - buy a face mask

Smoking in pubs - worried about your health, don't go - SIMPLE

Exetoniarpaccount, you are an example of the a-social pricks we're against thank you very much. You are the one with the deadly habit, the only thing we ask is to not force it on other people who don't have that habit. It seems you ignore those people, that's a-social.
@Conrado:
Smoking ban inside a ban is nothing more then logical, read the post on page 3:
1) I could actually sit in a pub for more than 5 minutes without having to use eyedrops, and for more than 1 hour without having to repeatedly re-moisturise my contact lenses.

2) I could spend an hour in the pub after work, and could wear the same pants to work the next day. Also, I didn't get sick from just smelling my skin and hair waking up the next day, and my clothes didn't stink up my room any more.
(not mine btw)
And ofcourse, there are the people with airway problems. Smokers aren't alone.

*snip*
Well, I pretty much agree with everything you've said except I've never heard of graduated drinking ages...I think 18 is a good, arbitrary age. Also, what are Blue laws?

Exetoniarpaccount, you are an example of the a-social pricks we're against thank you very much.

@Conrado:
Smoking ban inside a ban is nothing more then logical, read the post on page 3:
1) I could actually sit in a pub for more than 5 minutes without having to use eyedrops, and for more than 1 hour without having to repeatedly re-moisturise my contact lenses.

2) I could spend an hour in the pub after work, and could wear the same pants to work the next day. Also, I didn't get sick from just smelling my skin and hair waking up the next day, and my clothes didn't stink up my room any more.
(not mine btw)

I disagree with that. If someone has that kind of allergy to smoking, then it is either up to that person to NOT go there, or to the bar owner to ban smoking within their own bar themselves. If a lot of customers are complaining, then the bar owner SHOULD ban it. But if only 5% of bar patrons are complaining or having problems, then that isn't a justified reason for the gov't to ban it.

See, I don't care either way. If I was in a pub, I wouldn't care if smoking was allowed or not, because I don't smoke, never have. Its the person's job to not put them self into that kind of situation. For example, I am HIGHLY allergic to walnuts. One little speck of one gets me stuck in a hospital for at least a day, and without epinephrine or medical aid within an hour, I could die. So what do I do? I don't allow them in my house, and I don't eat things that have, or may have walnuts in them. I don't demand that the government bans walnuts. And I fully support the owner's right to ban or permit things as he sees fit, but I wouldn't want to see the gov't getting involved in such a thing, although I have already admitted that I am in favor of basic regulation, (cleanliness, etc).

Blue Laws are the remnants of regulations brought into effect largely by the Puritans. There are many of them, although most are now off of the books. Examples include it being illegal to purchase alcohol after 8 pm or on Sunday, laws against serving alcohol within 1 mile of a church, and other things of the sort. They are reminders of Puritan Theocracy, and have no place in any modern society, in my opinion.

*snip assorted rantings*
Well, despite extensive instruction you seem incapable of rebutting the arguments that have been made, supporting your own issue, creating a workable analogy OR posting anything beyond 'waaaaaaaa I'm a smoker, and I have rights'.

Exetoniarpaccount, you are an example of the a-social pricks we're against thank you very much.

@Conrado:
Smoking ban inside a ban is nothing more then logical, read the post on page 3:
1) I could actually sit in a pub for more than 5 minutes without having to use eyedrops, and for more than 1 hour without having to repeatedly re-moisturise my contact lenses.

2) I could spend an hour in the pub after work, and could wear the same pants to work the next day. Also, I didn't get sick from just smelling my skin and hair waking up the next day, and my clothes didn't stink up my room any more.
(not mine btw)


How dare you. You dont know me at all. im not anti-social. in fact im a very social people with a few friends an a wider circle of aquaintances both smokers and non smokers.

What have I done thats anti-social. Ranted that i feel it unfair that i am told where and when I can and cant smoke a legal substance.

That im pissed off that someone took something I said out of context and 'trolled' me into 'flaming' them.

That im pissed off that you feel your rights as a nonsmoker supercede my own?

I am a very social person. I smoke and i socialise with smokers. my non smoking friends socialise with me and never have they asked me to put out my ciggy. Yes they have complained about the stench left from smoking but they say its no worse than their parents house (they smoke).

It is infact you, the non-smokers who are being anti-social. Your demands are completly unreasonable.. especially with an analogy such as your smoking is assulting me which was no better if not worse than my own.

I was my hands og the NSG non-smoking community who feel im anti-social... go out and enjoy life and stop pissing people like me off. im only here tonight cause im ill and bored!

I was my hands og the NSG non-smoking community who feel im anti-social... go out and enjoy life and stop pissing people like me off. im only here tonight cause im ill and bored!

Or you could exercise your freedom of choice and not post on a board that will 'piss people like you off'. Especially when you don't actually seem to want to debate...just rant. And then get upset when people call you on it. Yes. We expect more from NSGers.

@Exetoniarpaccount:
Ignoring people who can't stand your deadly habit falls under my flag of "a-social". Why the hell should I accept you blowing smoke in my face (for example)? Really, why should the normal, healthy people, suffer on the addicted? Explain.

Well, despite extensive instruction you seem incapable of rebutting the arguments that have been made, supporting your own issue, creating a workable analogy OR posting anything beyond 'waaaaaaaa I'm a smoker, and I have rights'.

Read my edit way bacxk. i took one look at the first paragraph of the WHO investigation into smoking related deaths.. 90% of lung cancer deaths are smoking related with no facts to back up that very statistic.. no reference nuber to check a reference nada..

I then asked someone with the time to go get me a 1+1+1+1 = 4 answers instead of 3,5,6 etc... I'll do some more checking but im pretty damn sure the statistics will all contradict each other or have no factuial reference like my own arguments.

I'll do some more checking but im pretty damn sure the statistics will all contradict each other or have no factuial reference like my own arguments.

*dies laughing...errr...I mean smoking*

@Exetoniarpaccount:
Ignoring people who can't stand your deadly habit falls under my flag of "a-social". Why the hell should I accept you blowing smoke in my face (for example)? Really, why should the normal, healthy people, suffer on the addicted? Explain.

You sir, failed to read my earlier post where i stated pre ban that I would happily moved away somewhere else if asked. People like you forcing me to move away without having to ask is what could be considered anti-social.

Forcing your lifestyle on me is anti-social. i never forced my smoking on you (if we were in the same pub), you made the choice to be there now 9if we are in the same pub) you force your lifestyle on me.. capiche?

I'll do some more checking but im pretty damn sure the statistics will all contradict each other or have no factuial reference like my own arguments.

*dies laughing...errr...I mean smoking*

Factual references? You? In what alternate universe?

I am not going to comb through all the pages of this thread to find your illuminating edit. Provide the link svp.

*dies laughing...errr...I mean smoking*

Go check the WHO report for yourself. The cancer research uk page on smoking uses it as a reference yet the statistic itself inside the report has no reference... so.. can you prove 90% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, can I prove otherwise?

Fine though why am i doing the leg work. You as the anti-smoker should be providing me with the facts as to why my assumptions are all wroing but i will do anyways. Hang on there.

How dare you. You dont know me at all. im not anti-social. in fact im a very social people with a few friends an a wider circle of aquaintances both smokers and non smokers.

What have I done thats anti-social. Ranted that i feel it unfair that i am told where and when I can and cant smoke a legal substance.

That im pissed off that someone took something I said out of context and 'trolled' me into 'flaming' them.

That im pissed off that you feel your rights as a nonsmoker supercede my own?

I am a very social person. I smoke and i socialise with smokers. my non smoking friends socialise with me and never have they asked me to put out my ciggy. Yes they have complained about the stench left from smoking but they say its no worse than their parents house (they smoke).

It is infact you, the non-smokers who are being anti-social. Your demands are completly unreasonable.. especially with an analogy such as your smoking is assulting me which was no better if not worse than my own.

I was my hands og the NSG non-smoking community who feel im anti-social... go out and enjoy life and stop pissing people like me off. im only here tonight cause im ill and bored!
Excuse me for watching my health. Our demands aren't unreasonable and we will gladly discuss why in a civilized manner as soon as your temper tantrum is through.

some people are happy with smoking

whats more important, money or happiness........happiness
whats more important, general health or happiness...id say happines

id rather live 50 years and just be happy with smoking
than live 84 years and think

"cant the government gimme 1 last puff!"

some people are happy with smoking

whats more important, money or happiness........happiness
whats more important, general health or happiness...id say happines

id rather live 50 years and just be happy with smoking
than live 84 years and think

"cant the government gimme 1 last puff!"

You sir, failed to read my earlier post where i stated pre ban that I would happily moved away somewhere else if asked. People like you forcing me to move away without having to ask is what could be considered anti-social.

Forcing your lifestyle on me is anti-social. i never forced my smoking on you (if we were in the same pub), you made the choice to be there now 9if we are in the same pub) you force your lifestyle on me.. capiche?
Why even consider starting to smoke when other people are nearby? I really don't understand why you would even wánt to start that. And no, I don't force my lifestyle on you, I never sad you can't smoke, just not near me. Besides, in a pub, not only your neighbore is affected by the smoke. It spreads through the whole pub, and if 1 person starts smoking, more follow, making it 1 big smoke filled den.

You sir, failed to read my earlier post where i stated pre ban that I would happily moved away somewhere else if asked. People like you forcing me to move away without having to ask is what could be considered anti-social.

Forcing your lifestyle on me is anti-social. i never forced my smoking on you (if we were in the same pub), you made the choice to be there now 9if we are in the same pub) you force your lifestyle on me.. capiche?

We are not forcing our lifestyle on you. If we did, you wouldn't be allowed to smoke. Period.

And you now have the choice we used to face: go out and socialize in a smoke free environment or stay home. It's interesting to see you upset by that choice now that the tables have turned.

We are not forcing our lifestyle on you. If we did, you wouldn't be allowed to smoke. Period.

And you now have the choice we used to face: go out and socialize in a smoke free environment or stay home. It's interesting to see you upset by that choice now that the tables have turned.

Exactly.

Considering one environment is inherently unhealthy while the other is not...it seems a no brainer why the one would be preferable to the other.

Exercise your choice, smoker. Smoke at home, or don't go out. :P

At the end of the day, i'll say this. if it is legal to purchase tobacco products then it is against my rights as a smoker to tell me when and where I can light up! - Apparently several pubs in England are realising this and fighting the law :O

Analogy coming. Ready? Here we go:

It is legal to purchase alcohol. Is it against your rights to tell you when and where you can drink? Say, behind the wheel of a car, or to excess and belligerence in public?

How about guns? They're legal to buy here, but they tend to frown on you taking target practice out on Main Street. And by "frown" I mean "arrest the living shit out of you".

*snip the rest, as I agreed with all of it*

Ugh, teens. I'm not looking forward to my girls reaching that age. Teens shove spikes through their noses, get tattoos from seedy, Hep-infested parlours, drive drunk, or become fundamentalist Christians along with any other number of stupid assholery to 'rebel'.

Ah, 'twas a divine time... :D

I can only imagine, Sin. You must have been quite the hellion. You still are, of course, but experience has made that trait all the more...yummy.

Since forks are dangerous and can hurt people I think we need to ban those too. People are too stupid to know what's best for them, and how to protect themselves, so we need a strong government to tell them what to do with every moment of their meaningless existences.

Neesika, it seems to me as though we have incredibly different views of the role of government.

Or you can stop reducing every argument to absurdity. Forks are only "regulated" by the laws that cover any assault.

I can go to a pub and drink a pint that is arguably doing more damage than smoking is yet I cant light up on 'health grounds' - Fail.

Health and safety at work act - Fail. The ban had nothing to do with that act. It was all to do with cutting down the amount of smokers.

People have to work in pubs due to lack of work - Fail. They probably just didnt want to work as dustmen/women, train to be plumbers/builders, take adult education classes to help gain qualifications that they didnt get when younger due to either a: Laziness or b: Dislexyia (sp?) - The latter i can sympathise with. End of the day.. bar work is not a last ditch job.

I have a right to drown my sorrows and damage my liver and kidneys beyond repair in a pub but i cannot smoke because its a danger to others around me who have more chance of getting cancer from drinking redwine or walking down the street...

Yeah.. ok.. whatever...

Drinking is a danger to others around you.. have you ever witnessed a drunken brawl or had some drunken iditot swing a bottle/fist/chair at you?

This post has been bitch-slapped more times than Tina Turner. I don't need to pile on.

So you ignore the bit about irreperable liver and kidney damage and focus on that.

Lets get this straight:

SMOKING may cause CANCER
DRINKING does cause HEART, LIVER and KIDNEY problems

So why should i not be able to light up next to the guy on his 5th pint of the evening.. he's already done more damage than my one ciggy.

Ah, no. One ciggy increases blood pressure and heart rate. Five pints makes you tell the bartender that he's the hottest woman in the place. You're completely stepping all over yourself with the smoking vs. drinking comparison. Mostly because there isn't one.

I fucking give up on this thread. All you anti-smokers are living on Government fed bolloks. The fact is you have a chance of getting cancer.... |Most things nowadays have a chance of giving you cancer.

Uh-huh, and where those things have a possibility of affecting the public at large, those things are regulated. PCBs, dioxin, asbestos and...wait for it...cigarette smoke.

Im going to boil it down to its simplest level - People don't like smokers. Forget all the health stuff, thats what the bottom line is!

Except that it isn't. I have suckled at the smoky teat of cigarette kisses on numerous occasions. They have a certain dark charm, but usually when smoke has already been introduced into the evironment. I know many smokers, and have a few as relatives. I like all of them. I dislike the smell and feel of the physical residue of their habit. And guess what? That's what some laws are trying to protect people from. No smoking indoors. Makes sense. Outdoors is, of course, ventilated, and won't wind up smelling like the Marlboro Man's bandana, like the inside of those telemarketer phone bays back when I was getting my first job as a 16-year-old.

I am fed up of people telling me where and when I can do something as simple as smoking. If you are really worried about cancer then smoking is the least of your worries. Seriously, it really is.

Unfortunately, is just isn't simple. I'm worried about my skin, hair, clothes and everything smelling rancid. I'm worried about bar and restaurant workers who may not be smokers who, because of work availability, might not be able to quit that job and find another right away -- and who will therefore be compelled by supply and demand to keep working there.

That sarcastic in its response means that despite my earlier actions I should not be debating with you.

Well, THAT's true, but not for the reason you stated.

In rebuttal, do you honestly have the right to force me not to smoke through law?

Yes, but not as one person. I have the right to petition the legislature for a redress of grievances. If enough people agree with me, through the ballot initiative process or through popular demand to a legislator, I can help get laws passed.

Is it right to lable smoking products with various warnings that everybody with the tiniest amount of common sence knows but not another that is just as dangerous if not more dangerous and less people know the dangers of.

Yes. Why? Because anyone's comparison to, say, fast food or other obesity-causing habits fails. And that's because with food, moderation is healthy. No amount of consistent tobacco use is healthy.

Is it right to make a citizen feel third class and to give them less right to smoke than a convict (smoking is still allowed in prisons.. eat that one health and safety campaigners).

If that citizen chooses to smoke AND chooses to feel that way about the restrictions in place on smoking, then yes. Nobody who drives feels like a third class citizen to those who drive Formula One. Why? Because those drivers have specific places and times at which they can do what they do, and they choose to take advantage of those specific rules.

I don't know how prisons work in the UK, but the two I've visited in the US have had ample ventilation.

Is it right to make said citizen pay over the top for the product you are telling them not to smoke to help fund your wars?

Yes it is. Smoking-related health problems are a burden on heathcare systems. Fewer smokers means less of a burden. And guess what? If everyone magically quit at once, there'd be no need for the funds generated by that tax, now would there?

Considering that it is the poor and racial minorities smoke the most any bans on smoking, and in fact all taxes on smoking, are a form of race and class warfare instituted by rich white Jetta and Prius-driving liberals. I've always know that racism has run pretty deep in this country but to discriminate against people on the color of their lungs is a new low in my book.

I haven't the words to articulate what's wrong with this statement because I'm too busy looking out my office window at the legion of white smokers outside after lunch.

Besides, second-hand smoke is only a problem for those who freely choose to remain in the vicinity of it. If you don't like smoke in bars then find or build one that prohibits it. This is about personal choice, damnit.

I see, so no matter where you choose to light up, I have to move. Fuck that. And what of the bartender and server working in the bar? Are they to be stripped of their right to breathe smokeless air for your personal choice? Doing something that fouls the air AUTOMATICALLY makes it more than personal. How is that difficult to understand? I walk in and sit down. You choose to burn dried leaves and fill the neighboring areas with smoke and stench. Even if I'm there first, according to you, I have to leave. Right. Glad you're not in charge.

And had any of you considered the health benefits of smoking? They do exist. Smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, probably due to the stimulant effect of the nicotine. Seriously, non-smokers run around twice the risk of those diseases. It also helps schizophrenics by improving their alterness and cognitive functions, making them more lucid for a short while. And did I mention that smoking reduces ulcerative colitis and has been shown to interfere with Kaposi's sarcoma, breast cancer, preeclampsia, and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma. Again, the nicotine is the likely cause.

So you see, smoking is not just abou personal choice but it also has many health benefits.

Okay, you smoke, but what ARE you smoking? You're less likely to develop Alzheimers? Great. So when you get lung cancer and hypertension, you'll remember why. Excuse me, but how does any fractional reduction of a handful of disorders (I'd like to see links on ALL of those, by the way) balance the multifold increase in heart disease, high blood pressure, lung cancer and the host of definitely-linked ailments that cigarette smoke is known for a fact to cause and exacerbate? That's like saying that chronic third-degree sunburns slightly lower your risk of pimples...nevermind the skin damage and melanoma.

Exactly.

Considering one environment is inherently unhealthy while the other is not...it seems a no brainer why the one would be preferable to the other.

Exercise your choice, smoker. Smoke at home, or don't go out. :P
Or smoker goes outside the pub for 5 mins, takes a smoke, and goes back in: what's the big deal?

it's crazy how some smokers think they should somehow be entitled to ruining the atmosphere for other people (they probably enjoy farting in elevators too) and endangering their health which is somehow the other persons fault for sticking around when they light up. That govt regulations against harming other people are somehow infringing on their rights is laughable.

I was a two pack a day smoker at one time. Even then I would only smoke outdoors (even when smoking was allowed inside), I would move down wind from people near me who weren't smoking and I enjoyed the clean air in places that didn't allow smoking. I wouldn't subject my car passengers to smoke either. I guess courtesy is a rare commodity for some smokers.

I also HATE smokers who think it's fine and dandy to flick cig butts out of the car window or just on the ground while walking. Fuck you littering fucks.

Cancer research uk research into cancer stats (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/)

Around 90% of lung cancer cases are caused by tobacco smoking and, in addition, the 2002 IARC Working Group concluded that tobacco smoking can also cause cancers of the following sites: upper aero-digestive tract (oral cavity, nasal cavity, nasal sinuses, pharynx, larynx and oesophagus), pancreas, stomach, liver, lower urinary tract (renal pelvis and bladder), kidney, uterine cervix and myeloid leukaemia.7

-from the above link

WHO report into smoking and tobacco smoke (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf)

Page 3 of 12 is the specific reference from Cancer research uk. I could not find a specific reference to anything to back this up although if I have missed something in my skim read, i'd happily like it pointed out to me.

Overall tobacco smoking is estimated to be responsible for approximately 30% of cancer deaths in developed countries, that is, 46,000 deaths in 2005 in the UK.8

This is from cancer research uk. it makes reference to this Here (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/mortality/?a=5441) Which shows a break down of the stats in 2007 It impicitly states it is responsible for 6% of deaths in the Uk and accounts for 22% of all deaths from cancer in the uk. However it does not supply any factual or statistical information about how many of these lung cancer deaths are smoking related or can be directly attributed to smoking being the primary cause.

The rest of the cancer research uk article goes into passive smoking which although i will admit to being annoing and a possible cause of cancer is probably no more dangerous than walking through london on a busy day..

Of course if someone wants to present a counter rebuttle id be glad to hear it.

Go check the WHO report for yourself. The cancer research uk page on smoking uses it as a reference yet the statistic itself inside the report has no reference... so.. can you prove 90% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, can I prove otherwise?

Fine though why am i doing the leg work. You as the anti-smoker should be providing me with the facts as to why my assumptions are all wroing but i will do anyways. Hang on there.

Are you referring to this report? (http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/mpower_report_full_2008.pdf) (warning, large PDF file)

Hmmm, no references hmmm? You mean, page 60, the reference page, is missing!? Oh wait, no it's not. And you'll notice, all the diagrams and graphs have their sources listed directly beside or under them.

So what was it you were complaining about again? I forget. Oh right, the UK data. You'll notice on page 70 that it wasn't feasible to include all the data used in this publication...though the research methods are laid out for you. You can access said data at www.who.int/tobacco/mpower.

Well... I'd appreciate not having to walk behind a smoker puffing smoke back into my face, or walking through the halls of a building without smelling the stuff reeking in through the windows because people huddle just outside the doors to smoke.

I certainly would have appreciated it had my parents not lit up in the car while I was a child, thus avoiding the horrible motion sickness and headaches that insued every fucking time. And I can tell you about ashes being blown back into my eye. Goddamn that hurts.

I was thinking yesterday after noting the new signs around here (no smoking within 10 meters of this building) that smokers should have their own little smoking gazzebo... a completely closed in area, maybe with a few benches and a heater with a tall chimney at the top to let the smoke out away from other people. Thus, smokers have a warm place to poison themselves and fume up their clothes, and no one else has to smell it. ;)

Or smoker goes outside the pub for 5 mins, takes a smoke, and goes back in: what's the big deal?

I honestly don't know. With some people it seems to be 'I MUST SMOKE IN COMFORT OR I CAN'T SMOKE AT ALL!'

To which I go *shrug*.

*snip*

It was fine to smoke in a pub until the nanny state said it was dangerous to smokers and those around them.

Yes, the Nanny State, taking its cues from DECADES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, POSTMORTEM ANALYSIS, and LONGITUDINAL STUDIES. Damn that State for daring to look at the facts and act accordingly.

As for H&S legislation.. do ear defenders really protect from noisy environnments. Hell for that matter, why are the Government allowed to get roads dug up with noisy machinery which damage my hearing as a pedestrian yet the worker gets his ears protected.

Seriously? This is the best you've got? Tell me, as a pedestrian -- walking BY the work site -- does that effort take you eight hours? No? Then THAT'S why you don't get ear protection and the guy behind the jackhammer for hours at a time DOES! What is wrong with you?

Go to a pub - expect to be in a smokey environment till the ban. Walk down a street, expect to breath in god knows what. Go to a club to drink with your mates and subject yourself to loud noise levels even if all you want to do is drink (still applicable due to the low take up on 24 hour drinking)

Where is the difference... Loud noise being afflicted on you if you dont dance just so you can have a drink.. - answer - don't go.

Pollution from cars etc - buy a face mask

Smoking in pubs - worried about your health, don't go - SIMPLE

When I was in the minority among my friends, I gladly either put up with the smoke or I didn't tag along. Hey smoker, you're the minority now. So perhaps it's YOU who should stay out, hey? SIMPLER. See how childish that sounds?

You sir, failed to read my earlier post where i stated pre ban that I would happily moved away somewhere else if asked. People like you forcing me to move away without having to ask is what could be considered anti-social.

Why should anyone have to ask not to be smoked out by some inconsiderate twat?

it's crazy how some smokers think they should somehow be entitled to ruining the atmosphere for other people (they probably enjoy farting in elevators too) and endangering their health which is somehow the other persons fault for sticking around when they light up. That govt regulations against harming other people are somehow infringing on their rights is laughable.

I was a two pack a day smoker at one time. Even then I would only smoke outdoors (even when smoking was allowed inside), I would move down wind from people near me who weren't smoking and I enjoyed the clean air in places that didn't allow smoking. I wouldn't subject my car passengers to smoke either. I guess courtesy is a rare commodity for some smokers.

I also HATE smokers who think it's fine and dandy to flick cig butts out of the car window or just on the ground while walking. Fuck you littering fucks.

Ohhhhh, MASSIVE pet peeve. It's like they know they have a noxious habit and don't want to stain their precious car's interior or stink it up, but flicking a lit one out the window where it might start a grass or brush fire? Perfectly fine by these assholes. When I see one of those shit-stains do that in front of me, I lean on the horn. One time I was in the wrong mood and saw someone do that. I got out of my car (red light), picked it up and put it out on their windshield (ciagrette ember won't burn safety glass). I considered flicking it back throught their open window, but figured I'd made my point.

It was a jackass thing to do, I admit it, but it felt really good. Your car has an ashtray, asshole, and if it doesn't, you should damned well GET one.

I second the loathing for litterbug-smokers. A couple of months back, I actually saw a jackass throw his smoking butt onto - I swear to goodness - a bag of dry lawn clippings in someone else's yard. It apparently just didn't even occur to him that that might be a bit of a problem. (I went over to the bag, pulled the disgusting butt off it, and threw it away, while making loud comments about some people's filthy selfishness.)

Yes, the Nanny State, taking its cues from DECADES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, POSTMORTEM ANALYSIS, and LONGITUDINAL STUDIES. Damn that State for daring to look at the facts and act accordingly.



Seriously? This is the best you've got? Tell me, as a pedestrian -- walking BY the work site -- does that effort take you eight hours? No? Then THAT'S why you don't get ear protection and the guy behind the jackhammer for hours at a time DOES! What is wrong with you?



When I was in the minority among my friends, I gladly either put up with the smoke or I didn't tag along. Hey smoker, you're the minority now. So perhaps it's YOU who should stay out, hey? SIMPLER. See how childish that sounds?



Why should anyone have to ask not to be smoked out by some inconsiderate twat?



Ohhhhh, MASSIVE pet peeve. It's like they know they have a noxious habit and don't want to stain their precious car's interior or stink it up, but flicking a lit one out the window where it might start a grass or brush fire? Perfectly fine by these assholes. When I see one of those shit-stains do that in front of me, I lean on the horn. One time I was in the wrong mood and saw someone do that. I got out of my car (red light), picked it up and put it out on their windshield (ciagrette ember won't burn safety glass). I considered flicking it back throught their open window, but figured I'd made my point.

It was a jackass thing to do, I admit it, but it felt really good. Your car has an ashtray, asshole, and if it doesn't, you should damned well GET one.

You sir are an ass. See my above post. There are plenty of facts and statistics about lung cancer however when you try to add !+1 and get 2, you come a cropper with sources saying 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking.. There, or to my knowledge, is no conclusive proof that smoking alone causes cancer. There is conclusive proof that smoking can be a mittigating factor in lung cancer (and other cancers)..

Show me direct evdidence that smoking is responsible for 90% of smoking deaths and I'll shut up, especially if its in something I missed in my short investigation.

My main point is, those ear defenders wont save someoines hearing over 8 hours of everyday week in week out. my friend recently had to leave his job working for a road contractor due to the fact the petrol strimmer noise was causing him to have hearing trouble even with the ear defenders.

At the end of the day all I see are numerous statistics about smoking and lung cancer and numerous facts and statistics about just Ling cancer.

Ohhhhh, MASSIVE pet peeve. It's like they know they have a noxious habit and don't want to stain their precious car's interior or stink it up, but flicking a lit one out the window where it might start a grass or brush fire? Perfectly fine by these assholes. When I see one of those shit-stains do that in front of me, I lean on the horn. One time I was in the wrong mood and saw someone do that. I got out of my car (red light), picked it up and put it out on their windshield (ciagrette ember won't burn safety glass). I considered flicking it back throught their open window, but figured I'd made my point.

It was a jackass thing to do, I admit it, but it felt really good. Your car has an ashtray, asshole, and if it doesn't, you should damned well GET one.

You win my hero of the week award then (i don't care when this actually occured). I honk at the fuckers sometimes but they never seem to get why I am honking.

Cancer research uk research into cancer stats (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/) Okay let me go through this. So, reference 7 (the source to what you just quoted), is IARC, Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking (Report in Preparation). 2002. When we follow that link, we are directed to the WHO (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf) report you mentioned. Reference 7 doesn't direct us to a specific page...so one would assume that the entire report is relevant to the point being made. In fact, you'll find on page 3 of the WHO report the 90% of lung cancers claim (which actually says: In populations with prolonged cigarette use, the proportion of lung cancer cases attributable to cigarette smoking has reached 90%) and page 2 deals with the other cancerous claims (as does the rest of the document). So what you want here is where the WHO data comes from. Since the report is a Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation, you would have to purchase the entire monograph to get the data itself. You can do so here (http://www.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?sesslan=1&codlan=1&codcol=72&codcch=83).

I'm not really sure what your complaint is. You want to review data, but you won't do that unless it's handed to you on a platter?

The reference is to a legitimate study. Whether or not the study is any good is not up to the reference to prove...it's up to you to get ahold of that reference and check it out. Newflash...when you are referencing works, you don't have to ensure that those works are available freely on the internet for them to count. Check out your local college or university's library...they may carry plenty of journals you could find useful information in.

You sir are an ass. Tsk tsk. Flaming again. It's like it's a habit with you.

I second the loathing for litterbug-smokers. A couple of months back, I actually saw a jackass throw his smoking butt onto - I swear to goodness - a bag of dry lawn clippings in someone else's yard. It apparently just didn't even occur to him that that might be a bit of a problem. (I went over to the bag, pulled the disgusting butt off it, and threw it away, while making loud comments about some people's filthy selfishness.)

:fluffle:

You rule.

also: http://web.vtc.edu/mt/102/Projects/ElectronicNotebooks/SectionA/JoshCross/cig4_1.html

Cigarette butts cause environmental pollution

NEW YORK, May 24 (Reuters Health) -- Worldwide, smokers toss at least 4.5 trillion cigarette butts each year -- litter that causes significant environmental harm, US researchers report.

In their study, published in the Spring 1999 issue of the journal Tobacco Control, they call for better enforcement of laws against littering to reduce the environmental impact of cigarette butts, additional taxes on tobacco products to go towards clean-up efforts, and more effort on the part of tobacco companies to reduce packaging waste and educate consumers about the impact of tobacco waste on the environment.

The average cigarette butt ``contains numerous chemicals which may be considered health hazards,'' according to co-authors Dr. Thomas Novotny of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, and Dr. Feng Zhao of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.

The researchers note that ``smokers may not consider that a cigarette butt is litter, but these waste products seem to be ubiquitous.'' Butts are often cast onto the sidewalk, where they often end up in drains and then out to lakes and seas. While the paper and tobacco of cigarette butts are biodegradable, their cellulose acetate filters are not, according to the report.

Novotny and Zhao examined data from two leading US environmental organizations -- the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC).

They found that ``for the past 8 years, cigarette butts have been the leading item found during the (CMC's) International Coastal Cleanup Project,'' accounting for nearly one in every five items collected.

Discarded cigarette butts in ashtrays can also pose a serious health risk to children, according to the researchers. They note that ``in 1994-1995, the Rhode Island Department of Health identified 40 cases of cigarette butt ingestion among children aged 6 to 24 months... 13 of the cases of ingestion produced symptoms such as vomiting, gagging and lethargy.''

Novotny and Zhao recommend that the tobacco industry be held at least ``partly accountable'' for the environmental impact of tobacco-related litter. ``The tobacco industry should improve the biodegradability of filters, reduce packaging waste, and educate its customers,'' they say. Special taxes might also be added to the price of cigarettes to fund environmental clean-up efforts, according to the authors. Finally, they believe that all worksites and public buildings should reduce cigarette littering by supplying ashtrays and other ``disposal mechanisms'' at building entrances.

Does nicotine turn people into complete idiots? Or just into selfish ass-bags?

Okay let me go through this. So, reference 7 (the source to what you just quoted), is IARC, Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking (Report in Preparation). 2002. When we follow that link, we are directed to the WHO (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf) report you mentioned. Reference 7 doesn't direct us to a specific page...so one would assume that the entire report is relevant to the point being made. In fact, you'll find on page 3 of the WHO report the 90% of lung cancers claim and page 2 deals with the other cancerous claims (as does the rest of the document). So what you want here is where the WHO data comes from. Since the report is a Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation, you would have to purchase the entire monograph to get the data itself. You can do so here (http://www.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?sesslan=1&codlan=1&codcol=72&codcch=83).

I'm not really sure what your complaint is. You want to review data, but you won't do that unless it's handed to you on a platter?

The reference is to a legitimate study. Whether or not the study is any good is not up to the reference to prove...it's up to you to get ahold of that reference and check it out.


So i have to buy a report on it.. Why the hell do I have to buy a report thats obviously important. Seriously, if it is a summary of data should it not include the relevant references from the actual study itself (even in brief telling you where to find it if you buy the entirity of the report.

The 90% bit on page three is the direct reference being sort as you cant link to a specific page of a pdf.

But Im assuming that since that report is the basis on which many current statistics on smoking and lung cancer are based, you have to do the same in order to prove me wrong!

herefor, unless either of us has a copy of that report to hand, we are at a stalemate because without any factual basis avaliable to reference, we can neither backup or deny statistics in any direction.

The only definate fact i have from my very basic research is that 6% of all deaths in the uk are caused by cancer 22% of which are lung cancer (the largest deathrate from cancer)

When the government reduces smog in the major cities to breathable levels then they should have the right to legislate clean air from smoking. How incredibly hypocritical is it of NYS to ban smoking in all public places including bars and resturaunts, then allow billions and billions of tons of poisons to belch from industry, coal and oil manufacturing and on and on and on and not do one damn thing to prevent that because then it will cost the GOVERNMENT money to solve the problem and god knows we cant have that.

Wow this baby exploded since I went to classes. Heres responses to what I missed.

Look up who founded TASSC and JunkScience. Here's the guy that runs it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy)

Oh, my bad. I thought that you meant "junk science" as in crappy science, not the organization.

I'm denying that they do it to the extent that the pro-tobacco lobby does it, and unless you can find me concrete evidence that there actually is an equivalent to JunkScience that receives comparable amount of coverage and support, then that point stands.

Considering that everyone takes whatever new bit of info the anti-smoking groups produce as gospel lately, I think right now itd be hard to show any of these groups. However, that doesnt mean Im going to buy everything they say. Espeically when they do stupid things like exaggerate the danger of second hand smoke.

Assuredly. But pure economics should convince you that the side with the most to lose financially, is the side that is going to invest the most capital in making their case. There is a public policy desire to cut down on smoking and health-related costs due to smoking, but in no way can those desires exceed the desire of the tobacco industry to its profit.

One side is getting more 'fringe' misinformation out there, and you know who it is.

I never said the Tobacco industry didnt. In fact, they probably do it more. But I dont think they do it more by much.

My last post by my own admissions makes my rants 1 big clusterfuck of epic proportions.

I assuming that most statistics presented in papers for and against smoking in public etc are based on the WHO summary of that report...

Gah, I feel like such a complete twat now.. no really, i do!

If second hand smoke is so dangerous and nicotine is the most addictive substance on the planet, do any of you know anyone who is a second hand smoker? Do you know anyone that just HAS to get to a Bingo hall and get thier dose of second hand smoke? Have you seen the legions of dead second hand smokers? Yea me either. Its all bullshit.

My last post by my own admissions makes my rants 1 big clusterfuck of epic proportions.

I assuming that most statistics presented in papers for and against smoking in public etc are based on the WHO summary of that report...

Gah, I feel like such a complete twat now.. no really, i do!

Are you saying that your rants can't be backed up because you don't have access to that report at the moment? I'm confused.

If second hand smoke is so dangerous and nicotine is the most addictive substance on the planet, do any of you know anyone who is a second hand smoker? Do you know anyone that just HAS to get to a Bingo hall and get thier dose of second hand smoke? Have you seen the legions of dead second hand smokers? Yea me either. Its all bullshit.

Muahahahahahaa....the visual is appealing. Especially the Bingo Hall part.

I haven't seen anyone anywhere claim that second hand smoke is a problem because of addiction, but rather because it is entering the lungs of the second hand smoker in a more unfiltered form. Also, I honestly don't think a little second-hand smoking has killed anyone :P, rather, I worry about the people who are constantly exposed.

But an interesting question...why aren't those fuckers addicted? Maybe for the same reason they aren't smokers in the first place?

Are you saying that your rants can't be backed up because you don't have access to that report at the moment? I'm confused.

Im saying my rants were rants.

Im also saying in a polite way until anyone comes up with national/international statistics based on factual research that smoking causes cancer and is not a mittigating factor thatr any argument with regards to H&S at work are also invalid as doing many things in day to day life can be mittigating factors in cancer and more specifically lung cancer.

Does nicotine turn people into complete idiots? Or just into selfish ass-bags?

I'd like to think it's neither, but sometimes I wonder.

At the college I transferred to for a semester, there was a music building. About 95% of the people regularly using this building had immediate need of good, functioning lungs and throats for their work. So a polite sign was put on the door explaining this and asking smokers not to smoke inside the building or in the doorway.

The smokers (who, it should be noted, were not music students) didn't go away. In fact, they seemed to decide that the entrance to the music building was a great place to hang out on a regular basis, such that every student entering or leaving got a faceful of tobacco smoke.

So more, bigger signs were put up.

They still didn't go away.

The professors started taking it in turns to come out every few hours and talk to the smokers and politely ask them to go away.

They still didn't go away.

The head of the music department personally built a five-foot-tall wooden sign explaining why smoking was forbidden in this area, and placed it right next to the front door where no one could possibly miss seeing it.

They still didn't go away.

A group of students, myself included, spent a full day explaining to every smoker who wandered over to the doorway that they were making some of us very sick and that we had no desire to keep them from smoking, but that it was really important that they do it ANYWHERE else on campus.

They still didn't go away.

Near the end of my semester at that school, a freshman attempting to enter the music building had an asthma attack after some of the smokers blew their smoke in her face for shits and giggles.

I just can't fathom the mentality of people like that.

I don't know why people lie like this, have you ever spent only an hour at a local pub before leaving?

Yes.


Usually to go to the next pub. :p

Ooor, here's a novel idea, stop trying to regulate how people choose to kill themselves.


I know! Secondhand smoke is such a myth. When people light something on fire, then inhale it and subsequently exhale it, the smoke and various particulate matter hovers in an area about one foot in radius around the person.

This is the same way air pollution works. It never leaves the boundaries of the country it is produced in, so when some countries pollute a lot they are only harming themselves and no one else has to worry.

All these damned activists with their uppity little displays of concern for the welfare of themselves and others are really only being rude to those that want to puff in peace.

I'd like to think it's neither, but sometimes I wonder.

At the college I transferred to for a semester, there was a music building. About 95% of the people regularly using this building had immediate need of good, functioning lungs and throats for their work. So a polite sign was put on the door explaining this and asking smokers not to smoke inside the building or in the doorway.

The smokers (who, it should be noted, were not music students) didn't go away. In fact, they seemed to decide that the entrance to the music building was a great place to hang out on a regular basis, such that every student entering or leaving got a faceful of tobacco smoke.

So more, bigger signs were put up.

They still didn't go away.

The professors started taking it in turns to come out every few hours and talk to the smokers and politely ask them to go away.

They still didn't go away.

The head of the music department personally built a five-foot-tall wooden sign explaining why smoking was forbidden in this area, and placed it right next to the front door where no one could possibly miss seeing it.

They still didn't go away.

A group of students, myself included, spent a full day explaining to every smoker who wandered over to the doorway that they were making some of us very sick and that we had no desire to keep them from smoking, but that it was really important that they do it ANYWHERE else on campus.

They still didn't go away.

Near the end of my semester at that school, a freshman attempting to enter the music building had an asthma attack after some of the smokers blew their smoke in her face for shits and giggles.

I just can't fathom the mentality of people like that.

As a smoker, neither can I. I have never disobeyed a no smoking sign, even if it was in a well ventialted open space.

When I was at college, we had dedicated smoking areas. Smoking anywhere but in these areas was a 2 day expulsion, repeat offending was a full expulsion.

Did anyone ever smoke outside these areas.. yes, but only on the public highway (read:road) that went into the college and upfrom the bottom of the hill. This was not college property and thus the law didnt apply but of course, we made sure to be away from the buildings and main walkways when using the pavement on the road.

I'd like to think it's neither, but sometimes I wonder.

At the college I transferred to for a semester, there was a music building. About 95% of the people regularly using this building had immediate need of good, functioning lungs and throats for their work. So a polite sign was put on the door explaining this and asking smokers not to smoke inside the building or in the doorway.

The smokers (who, it should be noted, were not music students) didn't go away. In fact, they seemed to decide that the entrance to the music building was a great place to hang out on a regular basis, such that every student entering or leaving got a faceful of tobacco smoke.

So more, bigger signs were put up.

They still didn't go away.

The professors started taking it in turns to come out every few hours and talk to the smokers and politely ask them to go away.

They still didn't go away.

The head of the music department personally built a five-foot-tall wooden sign explaining why smoking was forbidden in this area, and placed it right next to the front door where no one could possibly miss seeing it.

They still didn't go away.

A group of students, myself included, spent a full day explaining to every smoker who wandered over to the doorway that they were making some of us very sick and that we had no desire to keep them from smoking, but that it was really important that they do it ANYWHERE else on campus.

They still didn't go away.

Near the end of my semester at that school, a freshman attempting to enter the music building had an asthma attack after some of the smokers blew their smoke in her face for shits and giggles.

I just can't fathom the mentality of people like that.



See, I dont smoke around people who dont want me to. In fact, whenever Im about to light up, the first thing I do is take my pack out, old it up and ask "Does anyone mind?" If one person says "Yes." I dont do it there. I wait, or I go outside.

New law. You can only smoke in public, or even in private, if youre not a dick about it.

Im saying my rants were rants.

Im also saying in a polite way until anyone comes up with national/international statistics based on factual research that smoking causes cancer and is not a mittigating factor thatr any argument with regards to H&S at work are also invalid as doing many things in day to day life can be mittigating factors in cancer and more specifically lung cancer.
To my knowledge, short of being a lab rat in a cancer research lab, there is nothing that can be listed as a direct cause of cancer.

So, unless you can show me that ANYTHING can be DIRECTLY linked to cancer, your calls for a direct link in this case must fall on deaf ears. A direct link is not important as long as something can be shown to be, within acceptable parameters, an actual mitigating factor.

You don't say, 'hey, that guy got hit by the car...but there is no direct link between his death and the accident, since it was internal injuries that actually killed him, HA!'. Well, okay, maybe you do.

The thing is, people who HAVE seen the data, who have participated in or reviewed the research, have pretty much been unanimous in their support for the link between smoking and various kinds of cancer. Frankly, waiting for a 'direct' link that by definition is impossible, is ridiculous, and you can't expect the rest of us to continue to be exposed unwillingly to cigarette smoke while they work on that one. Not just so you can be spared the minute discomfort of having to smoke outside. Lazy ass.

I
At the college I transferred to for a semester, there was a music building. About 95% of the people regularly using this building had immediate need of good, functioning lungs and throats for their work. So a polite sign was put on the door explaining this and asking smokers not to smoke inside the building or in the doorway.

The smokers (who, it should be noted, were not music students) didn't go away. In fact, they seemed to decide that the entrance to the music building was a great place to hang out on a regular basis, such that every student entering or leaving got a faceful of tobacco smoke.


I dont smoke but this kind of arrogance from non smokers angers me. No smoking in a DOORWAY? OMG i may have inhaled a few parts per million of smoke for one whole breath . Quick call the WAAAAmbulance! There is a reason people ignored that sign. Because its unreasonable.

Do you yell at the probably 500 cars that dumped WAY more crap into your lungs on the way to school? Or do you ban the family dog because in essence every time it farts its taking a crap in your sinuses? Its all about being rediculous in where you draw the line.

Or you can stop reducing every argument to absurdity. Forks are only "regulated" by the laws that cover any assault.



Sorry, but an argument saying that just because something can potentially be dangerous, it ought to be banned by the government is an absurdity in of itself. Especially in terms of something like cigarettes. I'm not reducing it to anything less than that position already is.

And Intestinal Fluids I agree with you. I know several VERY talented vocalists who not only tolerate smoke, but smoke themselves.

I dont smoke but this kind of arrogance from non smokers angers me. No smoking in a DOORWAY? OMG i may have inhaled a few parts per million of smoke for one whole breath . Quick call the WAAAAmbulance! Do you yell at the probably 500 cars that dumped WAY more crap into your lungs on the way to school? Or do you ban the family dog because in essence every time it farts its taking a crap in your sinuses? Its all about being rediculous in where you draw the line.

This lame little 'but so and so is doing something worse' argument (and I use the term loosely) has been beaten like a red headed step-child throughout this thread. Don't think you're up to anything clever with this ridiculous 'you can't complain unless we ban cars too' BS.

I dont smoke but this kind of arrogance from non smokers angers me. No smoking in a DOORWAY? OMG i may have inhaled a few parts per million of smoke for one whole breath . Quick call the WAAAAmbulance! Do you yell at the probably 500 cars that dumped WAY more crap into your lungs on the way to school? Or do you ban the family dog because in essence every time it farts its taking a crap in your sinuses? Its all about being rediculous in where you draw the line.

This isnt anti-smoking arrogance. If you inhale any smoke it makes singing hard.

The thing is, people who HAVE seen the data, who have participated in or reviewed the research, have pretty much been unanimous in their support for the link between smoking and various kinds of cancer. Frankly, waiting for a 'direct' link that by definition is impossible, is ridiculous, and you can't expect the rest of us to continue to be exposed unwillingly to cigarette smoke while they work on that one. Not just so you can be spared the minute discomfort of having to smoke outside. Lazy ass.

As have anybody who have done research into air pollutants and cancer, water pollutants and cancer, red wine and cancer etc.

You are the one being lazy quoting H&S at work regulations at me for my rants.

If nothing can be proven to be anything but a mittigating factor in activating the cancer cells (technicality.. its not what causes cancer but what activates the cells) then what right does anybody have to ban 1 mittigating factor in the work place.

Im not being lazy I am saying there is no proof 9by your own admission) that smoking causes lung cancer directly and the same goes for second hand smoke.

pollution is also linked with cancer. Only now in London and on a few select motorways in England are car owners being taxed more for entering a certain area. The only difference is health isn't the reason, its congestion.

So, in essence since smoking/second hand smoking cannot be proven (by your own admission) to be any more dangerous than any of the other reasons people get cancer, banning it in public places was purely to pander to the masses and reduce the amount of people doing this 'disgusting' habbit... hidden behind pretentious blown way out of proportion fear mongering.

I'll admit, pub air is nicer now since its fresh but, removing the smoking from pubs by fear mongering on bullshit is uncalled for!

This isnt anti-smoking arrogance. If you inhale any smoke it makes singing hard.

No shit. My ability to do gigs has increased a bazilionfold (real number) since things went non-smoking.

This isnt anti-smoking arrogance. If you inhale any smoke it makes singing hard.

If you could tell the difference listening to the singing of a person who walked thru a doorway for 2 seconds with a smoker loitering about, and someone who walked thru a doorway without a smoker then i will vote for you as most amazing human ever, cause you will have the ability to do something that noone else can.

I dont smoke but this kind of arrogance from non smokers angers me. No smoking in a DOORWAY? OMG i may have inhaled a few parts per million of smoke for one whole breath . Quick call the WAAAAmbulance! Do you yell at the probably 500 cars that dumped WAY more crap into your lungs on the way to school? Or do you ban the family dog because in essence every time it farts its taking a crap in your sinuses? Its all about being rediculous in where you draw the line.

Actually, I took the train to school, despite having a car, to minimize pollution, and my family dog spends all her time outside, since my mother and I are both allergic to her. I do, in fact, try to avoid trashing my respiratory system in other ways, too, because as someone who's trying to make her living as a singer, my respiratory system is rather important to me. The fact that I couldn't get to my voice lessons without my throat closing up from cigarette smoke was hardly an inconsequential problem. The horrible, horrible plight of the smokers who had no reason to be near that building to begin with being asked to go stand anywhere else - yeah, I can see how that's a much greater hardship than rendering the 200 or so vocal, woodwind, and brass students less able to function in their classes and making several of them quite actively ill. :rolleyes:

If you could tell the difference listening to the singing of a person who walked thru a doorway for 2 seconds with a smoker loitering about, and someone who walked thru a doorway without a smoker then i will vote for you as most amazing human ever, cause you will have the ability to do something that noone else can.

Most people with a musical ear can. It affects how long they can hold notes, hit higher notes, etc.

Most people with a musical ear can. It affects how long they can hold notes, hit higher notes, etc.

Im saying walking thru a doorway thats OUTDOORS for 2 seconds, not 4 hours in a Bingo hall.

Most people with a musical ear can. It affects how long they can hold notes, hit higher notes, etc.

bullshit.. not from 2 seconds of exposure... minutes, yes.. hours even days due to various points of exposure.. yes but 2 seconds.. not a chance in hell!

So, in essence since smoking/second hand smoking cannot be proven (by your own admission) to be any more dangerous than any of the other reasons people get cancer, False. I never said any such thing. I said that there is no direct link to anything and cancer. The fact that smoking is a much more aggravating factor to the development of various cancers than 'any of the other reasons people get cancer' has been documented.

Hahaha, I love how 'it's not freely available on the internet' has tranformed into 'it's not true!' for you.

I bet if you close your eyes and pretend the world has disappeared, you'd believe that too.

If you could tell the difference listening to the singing of a person who walked thru a doorway for 2 seconds with a smoker loitering about, and someone who walked thru a doorway without a smoker then i will vote for you as most amazing human ever, cause you will have the ability to do something that noone else can.

Really? Huh, 'cause my voice teacher could quite definitely tell the difference between me singing in my natural clear voice and me trying to sing while having an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke. So could I. So could, I suspect, pretty much anyone with functioning ears. We must all be pretty amazing. But please, if you have a source that says inhaling smoke is good for one's airways, or, heck, even one that says inhaling smoke can't possibly harm one's airways, do provide it.

And Intestinal Fluids I agree with you. I know several VERY talented vocalists who not only tolerate smoke, but smoke themselves.

We're talking about vocalists here, not singers in punk bands, hon.

Actually, I took the train to school, despite having a car, to minimize pollution, and my family dog spends all her time outside, since my mother and I are both allergic to her. I do, in fact, try to avoid trashing my respiratory system in other ways, too, because as someone who's trying to make her living as a singer, my respiratory system is rather important to me. The fact that I couldn't get to my voice lessons without my throat closing up from cigarette smoke was hardly an inconsequential problem. The horrible, horrible plight of the smokers who had no reason to be near that building to begin with being asked to go stand anywhere else - yeah, I can see how that's a much greater hardship than rendering the 200 or so vocal, woodwind, and brass students less able to function in their classes and making several of them quite actively ill. :rolleyes:

I hate to burst your bubble but taking one breath OUTDOORS near a doorway with light smoke did NOTHING to your voice or your ability to sing or your ability to do anything but complain about it.

bullshit.. not from 2 seconds of exposure... minutes, yes.. hours even days due to various points of exposure.. yes but 2 seconds.. not a chance in hell!

Nope, even two seconds. All it takes is for that shit to be in your lungs.

bullshit.. not from 2 seconds of exposure... minutes, yes.. hours even days due to various points of exposure.. yes but 2 seconds.. not a chance in hell!

Ha, you obviously don't sing.

I love how you minimize it. "From 2 minutes? Ok sure, but I bet not for 2 seconds! Ha! I win!"

The best part? Actually, I win. You can't smoke in a pub. *giggles*

bullshit.. not from 2 seconds of exposure... minutes, yes.. hours even days due to various points of exposure.. yes but 2 seconds.. not a chance in hell!

False. I somehow doubt that little freshman flautist could play nearly as well while she was having a severe asthma attack. Pretending that people cannot be affected by brief, concentrated exposures is just silly.

Of course, my example wasn't talking about a two-second exposure, anyway. It was talking about a doorway that every music student passed through at least ten or fifteen times per day. Unless music students have suddenly gained the ability to travel at FTL speeds, that adds up to a heckuva lot more than two seconds.

bullshit.. not from 2 seconds of exposure... minutes, yes.. hours even days due to various points of exposure.. yes but 2 seconds.. not a chance in hell!

Well, guess what. 2 seconds is ample time to trigger a coughing reflex. Which is not good for your airways, and affects them for quite a while.

Really? Huh, 'cause my voice teacher could quite definitely tell the difference between me singing in my natural clear voice and me trying to sing while having an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke. So could I. So could, I suspect, pretty much anyone with functioning ears. We must all be pretty amazing. But please, if you have a source that says inhaling smoke is good for one's airways, or, heck, even one that says inhaling smoke can't possibly harm one's airways, do provide it.

Your missing my point. Do i think hanging out in a Bingo hall could screw up your voice? Certianly. Do i think a HIGHLY diluted form of the smoke outdoors for one breath will affect your singing? No way in hell.

We're talking about vocalists here, not singers in punk bands, hon.

Exactly, unless you do death metal or punk rock, it doesnt help, and actually hurts.

I hate to burst your bubble but taking one breath OUTDOORS near a doorway with light smoke did NOTHING to your voice or your ability to sing or your ability to do anything but complain about it.

You clearly dont sing. Nor do you know jack shit about singing.

Your missing my point. Do i think hanging out in a Bingo hall could screw up your voice? Certianly. Do i think a HIGHLY diluted form of the smoke outdoors for one breath will affect your singing? No way in hell.

*points out the missed words like allergic reaction*

I bet you think that kids who break out when they smell nuts are faking it.

This thread has gotten silly. Non-smokers clearly win. It's the smokers who have to cry outside in the cold.

Near the end of my semester at that school, a freshman attempting to enter the music building had an asthma attack after some of the smokers blew their smoke in her face for shits and giggles.

I just can't fathom the mentality of people like that.


It's selfishness. Ass-baggery too. :p


I know what you are talking about. My wife has asthma and plays the flute. Just a little smoke and she can have an asthma attack leaving her unable to do anything that requires solid lung power for a while. We can't go to a lot of places here in Vegas because pretty much everywhere is smoking. At least we got rid of it in the restaurants.

I hate to burst your bubble but taking one breath OUTDOORS near a doorway with light smoke did NOTHING to your voice or your ability to sing or your ability to do anything but complain about it.

So you, never having heard her voice with or without smoke exposure, are right, while her music teacher, who taught her and listened to her for quite a long time I would imagine, day after day, is wrong. Just cause you say so. Amazing... :rolleyes:

False. I never said any such thing. I said that there is no direct link to anything and cancer. The fact that smoking is a much more aggravating factor to the development of various cancers than 'any of the other reasons people get cancer' has been documented.

Hahaha, I love how 'it's not freely available on the internet' has tranformed into 'it's not true!' for you.

I bet if you close your eyes and pretend the world has disappeared, you'd believe that too.

There you go again, baiting me with your assumptions.

Well documented, you got me on that but, if it is a much more aggrivating factor then it is clear it has links to cancer, which is not what you said in your post.

And aggr5ivation does not make you any more likely to get the cancer..

But, I digress and im fighting a battle ive already lost.

Well, guess what. 2 seconds is ample time to trigger a coughing reflex. Which is not good for your airways, and affects them for quite a while.

Might i suggest a plastic bubble? You may just simply be too delicate to coexist with other humans.

I hate to burst your bubble but taking one breath OUTDOORS near a doorway with light smoke did NOTHING to your voice or your ability to sing or your ability to do anything but complain about it.
Your "cars polute so it's ok for smokers to polute as well" argument has been slammed down plenty of times now. It doesn't even make sense. If I wait for the bus to come in the middle of the crowd, and a smoker next or infront of me desides to light one up, thus blowing smoke right in my face, I'm annoyed, highly annoyed! Why the hell would anyone even thínk to do that? It's incredibly a-social.

Your missing my point. Do i think hanging out in a Bingo hall could screw up your voice? Certianly. Do i think a HIGHLY diluted form of the smoke outdoors for one breath will affect your singing? No way in hell.

Um, good for you. By the way, I think that it's healthy to inject air bubbles into your veins. I mean, I may not have any factual evidence to support that, and people who actually know something about the subject have told me otherwise, but I think they're wrong. I mean, it's air, right? How much harm could it do? Therefore, all actual medical professionals should stop whining about how injecting air into someone's veins could kill them, because I, with my complete lack of knowledge on the subject, have decided that I think they're wrong, and who can argue with that logic?

;)

This thread has gotten silly. Non-smokers clearly win. It's the smokers who have to cry outside in the cold.

I have to say however that this is a pretty silly way to try and end the aguement. Thats like saying "Well, the US invaded Iraq already, so all anyone know can do is cry about it!"


Or if abortions are banned saying "Well, abortions are now banned, so all you damn pro-choices can do is just cry about it!"

You sir are an ass. See my above post. There are plenty of facts and statistics about lung cancer however when you try to add !+1 and get 2, you come a cropper with sources saying 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking.. There, or to my knowledge, is no conclusive proof that smoking alone causes cancer. There is conclusive proof that smoking can be a mittigating factor in lung cancer (and other cancers)..

Show me direct evdidence that smoking is responsible for 90% of smoking deaths and I'll shut up, especially if its in something I missed in my short investigation.

My main point is, those ear defenders wont save someoines hearing over 8 hours of everyday week in week out. my friend recently had to leave his job working for a road contractor due to the fact the petrol strimmer noise was causing him to have hearing trouble even with the ear defenders.

At the end of the day all I see are numerous statistics about smoking and lung cancer and numerous facts and statistics about just Ling cancer.

Why do you keep harping on about this 90% crap when YOU'RE the one who brought it up? Care to explain to me why I'm an ass and back it up with something other than nothing? Don't hurt yourself in the attempt.

My last post by my own admissions makes my rants 1 big clusterfuck of epic proportions.

I assuming that most statistics presented in papers for and against smoking in public etc are based on the WHO summary of that report...

Gah, I feel like such a complete twat now.. no really, i do!

Go with that feeling.

Sorry, but an argument saying that just because something can potentially be dangerous, it ought to be banned by the government is an absurdity in of itself. Especially in terms of something like cigarettes. I'm not reducing it to anything less than that position already is.

And Intestinal Fluids I agree with you. I know several VERY talented vocalists who not only tolerate smoke, but smoke themselves.

Potentially? :rolleyes:

If it IS dangerous, it deserves a ban. If it's potentially dangerous (let's live in your world for a few seconds), it deserves regulation. And that's exactly what's being proposed. Banning something in certain circumstances is not a complete ban.

And smoking vocalists? Short careers may appeal to some folks, and that's their problem. I can't think of any vocalist of note who maintained both vocal health and a cigarette habit for more than a decade. Witness the steady decline of Frank Sinatra's or Tony Bennett's voices. Bennett gave up smoking in time to have a career resurgence thanks to appearances on MTV.

ok, so the bs bit was harsh.. should have been an I dont think so but, an alergic reaction will not be suffered by all non smokers.

With the Asthma it triggered a pre existing condition. With the coughing, its a reflex action and it shouldnt affect you for more than a few minutes tops - if it does, go see your doctor.

Anybody with voice training, the difference would be inadudible to a normal audience..

But 2 seconds really isnt that much of a factor....

You can't sell unsafe food on your property either. Or refuse to sell food to someone because of their ethnicity. Or hire someone on your without following relevant workplace health and safety standards legislation. Just because you own property does not mean that you have your own mini fiefdom exempt from general law.

Really?! Dammit, I better free those serfs I have then...

You clearly dont sing. Nor do you know jack shit about singing.

Oh don't say that. He quite clearly is capable of putting his hands over his ears and singing, 'lalalalala, I'm not listening!' :D

Your "cars polute so it's ok for smokers to polute as well" argument has been slammed down plenty of times now. It doesn't even make sense. If I wait for the bus to come in the middle of the crowd, and a smoker next or infront of me desides to light one up, thus blowing smoke right in my face, I'm annoyed, highly annoyed! Why the hell would anyone even thínk to do that? It's incredibly a-social.

So is farting in a crowd, i want legislation that requires corks in everyones asses in public and in bars and restraunts.

I have to say however that this is a pretty silly way to try and end the aguement. Thats like saying "Well, the US invaded Iraq already, so all anyone know can do is cry about it!"


Or if abortions are banned saying "Well, abortions are now banned, so all you damn pro-choices can do is just cry about it!"

Silly is as silly does. Declaring the victory at this point fit the tone of the thread :p (points to post above)

If second hand smoking does affect your voice, can you tell me how at age 9 i was a perfect male child soprano chosen for most solos in my school and church youth choirs?

Now after my voice broke, i took no training and I took up smoking at 16, now be 23, no amount of vocal lessons will get me a decent voice... however, ny daily excercise routine does keep me fit and mylung capacity at a half decent level for a smoker as in my doc doesn't bother refering to my smoking after blowing into those tube things with the air volume measurer.