Any smokers on these forums?

[Androme]

to the proposed plans to ban smoking in public places (well it's been known for quite some time, but only recently has the pace picked up a bit in setting it as a law)

to the pub recently though that banned smoking from it, and although it's more of a bar than a pub, it's much nicer and smells much better

anyone who disagrees? if you do not wish to share your opinion but are against the motion, just simply post a and your opinion will surely be covered by someone else

[skiddy]

First time some retarded little **** of a barman tells me I can't smoke in the pub, I'm going to put my cigarette out in his eye.

[Evergreen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3356729.stm

THAT'S WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE INSIDE!

[MrL_JaKiri]

It should be the choice of the place in general; I'd support all publically owned areas (museés, and to a lesser extent public transport) banning smoking entirely, and merely encouraging other places to go nonsmoking.

[skiddy]

Yes, but on the outside I'm perfect.

[MrPeach]

Originally Posted by skiddy

First time some retarded little **** of a barman tells me I can't smoke in the pub, I'm going to put my cigarette out in his eye.

Just before being dragged outside by a team of bouncers who will take it in turn to beat the shit out of you?

There was a "smoke in" in the student union club at uni when they banned smoking during the day, it was quite uneventful, as no one cared.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by skiddy

First time some retarded little **** of a barman tells me I can't smoke in the pub, I'm going to put my cigarette out in his eye.

So what you're saying is that you don't care about the legality of the situation or the health or wellbeing of others, and will get violent?

Nice prosmoking statement duder

[skiddy]

Public transport does already.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

So what you're saying is that you don't care about the legality of the situation or the health or wellbeing of others, and will get violent?

Nice prosmoking statement duder

I of course would not injure the barman, I was simply attempting to pass on my strong feelings about said subject.

edit - i may get verbally abusive if drunk though...

[Evergreen]

Tbh flashing in public should be legal if smoking in public is.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Tbh flashing in public should be legal if smoking in public is.

\o/

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Tbh flashing in public should be legal if smoking in public is.

That's a silly statement, as 'flashing' is only illegal due to our victorian hangups, not concern over people's wellbeing.

[Evergreen]

What's with the victorian bashing?

[ChubbyChecker]

I agree with banning smoking in public places such as museums and train stations. But banning it in pubs is just plain immoral.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

What's with the victorian bashing?

They didn't sponsor Babbage's counting engine.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

I agree with banning smoking in public places such as museums and train stations. But banning it in pubs is just plain immoral.

Surely that should be the choice of the publican?

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

I agree with banning smoking in public places such as museums and train stations. But banning it in pubs is just plain immoral.

I bet Roy Castle knows where he wants to put his trumpet now.

[ParraCida]

Since 2 days smoking has been banned in every public place in the NL, you cannot smoke in trains and on trainstations you can only smoke in certain designated areas. It hasn't been banned in pubs etc yet but they are gradually working towards it.

I like it

[Evergreen]

There's something wrong with your sig roleplayer.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

There's something wrong with your sig roleplayer.

If you're not going to talk about smoking get out of this thread.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Surely that should be the choice of the publican?

No! They should be banned from banning smoking. On moral grounds.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I bet Roy Castle knows where he wants to put his trumpet now.

You don't get cancer from passive smoking, that's bullshit. If you believe that then you'd better not walk past a busy street ever, the car fumes might get you!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

You don't get cancer from passive smoking, that's bullshit.

I like your evidence

[edit]

Anyway, car fumes (for the moment) are a necessary evil; the cars actually DO something useful, unlike ciggies.

[queball]

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I like your evidence

[edit]

Anyway, car fumes (for the moment) are a necessary evil; the cars actually DO something useful, unlike ciggies.

Here's your evidence

If you think 6 cigarettes a year (7.3 for the heaviest intakers) is going to harm you then your problems are bigger than possibly getting cancer.

[Phang]

alright then. why should people be inconvenienced and suffer a nonetheless-increased risk of lung cancer just so you can kill yourself quicker? why is that 'moral' rather than 'hideously selfish'?

besides, the difference between 0 and 6 cigarettes a year does not have the same effect as, say, 400 and 406

[djbass]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

I agree with banning smoking in public places such as museums and train stations. But banning it in pubs is just plain immoral.

So is creating an environment that's virtually impossible for an asthmatic like me to enjoy because my sensistivity to smoke almost lands me in hospital. There's a reason I don't like bars that much and that's the bigger half of it.

=[DJ Bass]=

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Here's your evidence

If you think 6 cigarettes a year (7.3 for the heaviest intakers) is going to harm you then your problems are bigger than possibly getting cancer.

I actually live with someone who has a v negligable level of toxicity resistance.

She can't drink alcohol, bee stings can kill her and passive smoke causes her to suffer smoking related respiratory illnesses.

It's funny how she can go to spend a few days with her gram who is a smoker and suffer from many smoking based illness's, however she can live a virtually normal life otherwise including visiting cities and not coming down ill(She'd experience a bad throat and some phlegm of a nasty pus like colour but that was more frequently due to having to cohabit busses or an office at any point the day prior with a smoker).

Before you question anything she has equally no resistance to anything toxic (She was raised in a small town out in the middle of wildlife to be more descriptive, where the water was of the spring variety etc etc.)

You sound like my brother and that isn't something to be proud of.

[Snurx]

Why the **** should bars be forced into being non-smoke? I mean, let them decide for themselfs. The christian-fundamentalists that's running this country has banned all smoking in hospitals and other public builidings, while bars shall be smoke free from 1. june i think. It pisses me off, let us smokers alone you ****ing facists!

[Evergreen]

Banning all public establishments from allowing smokers is fair, it's called equal rights.

It doesn't just apply to gender you know.

It isn't prohibited, you are just asked to do it on your own time in your own space and in no-one's face.

[Phang]

wait wait wait
snurx is complaining because hospitals are stopping people from making people ill on the premises? i mean, what the ****?

[Snurx]

So, you're basically forcing all pubs to go smoke-free so that some people can go and enjoy them? I won't enjoy the pubs anymore, i mean, smoking and smoke is a big part of the atmosphere of a dark and cozy pub. Non-smokers can for ****s sake create/startup their own ****ing pubs, and not force all the others to be smoke-free. It's just another silly little law, sent down to "protect" us "dumb" people who can't "protect" ourselfs.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Here's your evidence

If you think 6 cigarettes a year (7.3 for the heaviest intakers) is going to harm you then your problems are bigger than possibly getting cancer.

'This suggests that passive smokers face a tiny excess lung cancer risk of around two per cent - 10 times lower than suggested by either the statistical evidence or estimates based on cotinine levels - a chemical linked to nicotine - in passive smokers. '

Surely a study which reports a level 10 times lower than the statistical evidence should be incorrect?

Should I be going round telling people that baccy is harmless, despite a large number of people dying because of it?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Snurx

So, you're basically forcing all pubs to go smoke-free so that some people can go and enjoy them? I won't enjoy the pubs anymore, i mean, smoking and smoke is a big part of the atmosphere of a dark and cozy pub. Non-smokers can for ****s sake create/startup their own ****ing pubs, and not force all the others to be smoke-free. It's just another silly little law, sent down to "protect" us "dumb" people who can't "protect" ourselfs.

On the other hand, you're forcing pubs to be smokey so some people can go and enjoy them.

I'd suggest that there are many more nonsmokers than smokers duder.

[Snurx]

No, im complaining beacause some "leader" decides what's good for me and mine, whitout even considering that we might not share their puritan views. If i want to smoke, it's my choice. If i want to get drunk, it's my choice. If i want to shoot heroine, it's my ****ing choice, and i will never accept that some ****tards are trying to stop me from doing what I want to do. The same "logic" applies to barowners, many of those do not want to have non-smoking pubs/bars, why should some "leader" decide for them?

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Snurx

So, you're basically forcing all pubs to go smoke-free so that some people can go and enjoy them? I won't enjoy the pubs anymore, i mean, smoking and smoke is a big part of the atmosphere of a dark and cozy pub. Non-smokers can for ****s sake create/startup their own ****ing pubs, and not force all the others to be smoke-free. It's just another silly little law, sent down to "protect" us "dumb" people who can't "protect" ourselfs.

Boo-Hoo

It's like the new age Gentleman's club.

Remember how they complained about how it shouldn't be illegal to bar women from golf clubs etc etc and made up weak arguments to support it backed up by lobby sponsored quacks?

WOW DIDN'T THAT BACKFIRE ON US!

I don't think this smoking ban will backfire either.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

On the other hand, you're forcing pubs to be smokey so some people can go and enjoy them.

I'd suggest that there are many more nonsmokers than smokers duder.

Yes, and thus, the non-smokers can create their own pubs that are smoke free, instead of forcing the smokers to have non-smoking pubs.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Snurx

Yes, and thus, the non-smokers can create their own pubs that are smoke free, instead of forcing the smokers to have non-smoking pubs.

Read my comments in the thread duder

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

On the other hand, you're forcing pubs to be smokey so some people can go and enjoy them.

I'd suggest that there are many more nonsmokers than smokers duder.

Around one third of the Dutch population of 16 million currently smoke - higher than all other European Union countries except Spain, Greece and Germany.

The government is aiming to cut the total by 5% over the next three years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3361053.stm

I've got your rear mark!

[Snurx]

Why should it backfire? The only people who will lose on this are the bar-owners, who will lose a lot of their customers. Of course, there are holes in the law, so certain places will be allowing smoke, and those are going to get pretty rich.

But i still don't know what that has to do whit anything.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Read my comments in the thread duder

I know that you are kinda sensible, im just venting out my agression duder

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

On the other hand, you're forcing pubs to be smokey so some people can go and enjoy them.

I'd suggest that there are many more nonsmokers than smokers duder.

Depends on the area. It used to be something like 50-50 nationwide, these days it's something like 30-70, though that might be horribly out of date. And in rich areas it's much less.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Snurx

No, im complaining beacause some "leader" decides what's good for me and mine, whitout even considering that we might not share their puritan views. If i want to smoke, it's my choice. If i want to get drunk, it's my choice. If i want to shoot heroine, it's my ****ing choice, and i will never accept that some ****tards are trying to stop me from doing what I want to do. The same "logic" applies to barowners, many of those do not want to have non-smoking pubs/bars, why should some "leader" decide for them?

The problem is where 'your choice' impinges on the rights and choices of others.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by queball

Depends on the area. It used to be something like 50-50 nationwide, these days it's something like 30-70, though that might be horribly out of date. And in rich areas it's much less.

Check my Post Queball.

Snurx: How many customers are they losing out on by being pro-smoking as it is? I know of many more people who will start using pubs when they become smoke free in comparison to the actual amount of smokers who will boycott non-smoking pubs in protest.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Snurx

Why should it backfire? The only people who will lose on this are the bar-owners, who will lose a lot of their customers. Of course, there are holes in the law, so certain places will be allowing smoke, and those are going to get pretty rich.

But i still don't know what that has to do whit anything.

It may not necessarily cut the business by all that much; there is a multitude of people who cannot go into smokey places.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The problem is where 'your choice' impinges on the rights and choices of others.

Exactly, and i can agree to this. Therefore, if i for example was in a hopsital, i would go outside to smoke. I would even go to a designated place where i did not bother anybody. But now, even that is not allowed.
Likewise, i would not smoke on a subway, or train, or a bus. (Unless there were designated smoking areas, and i think there should be on long-distance routes).
Or, i would not complain if, say, half of the pubs were smoke free. That way, people could make their own choices, if they want to go to a cosy, smoky haven or a uptight, non-smkoing yippie place (). But now, when ALL the places are going to get smoke-free, i'm pissed off.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by idimmu

going in to a pub for a few swift ones always pretty much requires washing my clothes after just due to the stench of ciggerettes

So the true losers in this are Unilever!

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Snurx

Exactly, and i can agree to this. Therefore, if i for example was in a hopsital, i would go outside to smoke. I would even go to a designated place where i did not bother anybody. But now, even that is not allowed.
Likewise, i would not smoke on a subway, or train, or a bus. (Unless there were designated smoking areas, and i think there should be on long-distance routes).
Or, i would not complain if, say, half of the pubs were smoke free. That way, people could make their own choices, if they want to go to a cosy, smoky haven or a uptight, non-smkoing yippie place (). But now, when ALL the places are going to get smoke-free, i'm pissed off.

I've still to see an actual brewer come out and make a statement complaining and lobbying against the massive economical harm this will cause.

I only see bratty smokers complaining and bratty smoker groups complaining.

Perhaps, just perhaps, and I know this will not be believable for yourself snurx, Brewers and Publicans themselves are dying for a reason to ban smoking from their pubs without any problems because it will be law. I think they actually do want too. It will give them a larger labor market to pick from with regards to improved working conditions, they are not making any money anytime you are smoking in their pub, only when you are drinking, if you ain't got a fag in your hand it has been reasoned that most smokers will sate themselves with food which will make publicans PROFIT.

So basically your arguments about the economical harm it 'may' cause are really unfounded unless you can find examples of industry aggrovation towards said proposal outside of tobacco companies.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Snurx

Likewise, i would not smoke on a subway, or train, or a bus. (Unless there were designated smoking areas, and i think there should be on long-distance routes).

Trains maybe. Not on a bus, because the air recirculates to some degree. It's like smoking/no smoking areas in restaurants. The smoke can actually travel dudes

[Dante Hicks]

Irrespective of economic arguments, I don't support government interference on "private" property.

If these places aren't private property then let's all nationalise the profits baby.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't support government interference on "private" property.

terrorist.