The proposed law

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That's the point though. Some guy smoking in a pub doesn't affect me unless I make a conscious effort to go there (and so long as it's signed I can hardly be surprised if people smoke). If he comes into my home and blows smoke into my face then obviously it's a different matter.

With factories producing smoke, I can hardly move to a different Earths atmosphere can I?

Didn't think of that. My bad.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

I cant believe you are using the "you dont have to go to xyz pub" line. Why should life be made difficult for non smokers? They arent the ones polluting the air etc, life should be made as difficult for smokers as possible

I am a non-smoker. I'm not making anything difficult for anyone. I want people who run pubs to have the freedom to decide whether people can smoke in their establishments.

It's like forcing pubs to serve vegetarian food or something. Vegetarians are more healthy, and better for the environment in general (meat production is inefficient).

I don't really care what's "normal". Gayness might not be normal, so why should hetrosexuals (the normals) have to see gay people kissing in pubs. Right?

Well, maybe. Maybe some people want to run a pub where public displays of gayness is allowed. Maybe some people want to run a family pub where that kind of thing isn't allowed. It's all good, let 'em get on with it.

Just because you don't value this particular act (smoking) - and neither do I, doesn't mean you should gleefully accept the state forcing preferences through.

[Ebany]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

I cant believe you are using the "you dont have to go to xyz pub" line. Why should life be made difficult for non smokers? They arent the ones polluting the air etc, life should be made as difficult for smokers as possible

See: Voltaire

[edit]

MrL.

And, to prove it's me:

Poom/Wright/Breen/Cooper/McCartney/Piper/Whitley/Thornton/Arca/Smith/Kyle

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

oh yeah, that LEGAL ecstacy culture.
cant forget them.

fascist... and it SHOULD be legal anyway, but i dont want this thread to turn into another drug legalisation debate thread. So i won't go on.

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I am a non-smoker. I'm not making anything difficult for anyone. I want people who run pubs to have the freedom to decide whether people can smoke in their establishments.

It's like forcing pubs to serve vegetarian food or something. Vegetarians are more healthy, and better for the environment in general (meat production is inefficient).
...
Just because you don't value this particular act (smoking) - and neither do I, doesn't mean you should gleefully accept the state forcing preferences through.

I thought your usual liberal line was something like "everyone should be allowed to do as they please so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else". I'm not sure I get the vegetartian thing, perhaps if by eating lettuce someone forced me to eat lettuce also that would be a similar situation.
If eating meat was detrimental to the health of the person sat next to you, then forcing pubs to serve veg only meals might make sense, but it isn't and smoking is. I don't give a monkey's toss if there's someone shooting up at the bar or getting a blowjob at the next table so long as it doesn't directly interfere with my business. Unless it claims to be a family pub of course.

[Androme]

Mask.

[lokken]

He-Man.

[Androme]

Sheman

[Stew]

I'm goin to a party on Friday as Shera.

I think I've said too much already!

But how off topic has this thread become in last few posts!?
(Yes I Know I'm not helping)



I'm indifferent to whether it should be banned - well not indifferent, I just see both sides.

[Deffeh]

Decidious said what i meant to. Smoking directly harms. Homosexuality, carnivorism, offends. If people should even have any legal right to smoke at all it should be where they harm no one but themselves. The state is more than justified in reacting

[Deepflow]

People shouldnt be allowed to drink because it makes a proportion of them violent. Also they drive and kill innocents due to the alchohol they consumed! Not to mention the self damaging aspect.

i feel i have now lowered the tone significantly. All we need now is someone to compare someone else to hitler.

[Deffeh]

Alcohol has concequences, if it was only discovered now it would never be legalised.

This is beside the point. The point is whether non smokers should be protected by the state from having to breathe in lethal fumes or not. Its not even a question to me

[lokken]

The people you should feel really sorry for are the bar staff who are risking their health for shit pay as they don't get compensated for the extra risk to their health, never mind who just visit the pub for a drink for a few hours now and again.

Ban it in all public places, especially on public transport, as the amount of seats wasted by the smoker's section is criminal, not to mention the fact it makes our public transport look filthier than it already is.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Alcohol has concequences, if it was only discovered now it would never be legalised.

This is beside the point. The point is whether non smokers should be protected by the state from having to breathe in lethal fumes or not. Its not even a question to me

i dont see what the banning of alchohol if it were discovered now has to do with anything, we are dealing with the real world.

what about areas that need to attract people for their own good (most of whom are smokers). In the heroin user drop in where i used to work, id say about 80% of them smoked, if they werent allowed to do so in the drop in then they might not come in, would not get help etc. Of course its up to them anyway, but still, it also served cheap, nourishing food for them and gave moral and physical support. But anyway.

Should we ban cars which give out toxic fumes when people could get on the bus? Should we ban gambling because of the criminal groups that it breeds? Should we stop people burning ANYTHING unnecesarily as that contributes to the pollution of the country? Should we stop people playing football because it can damage passers bys health if they get hit by a stray ball? Should we ban darts because people can get hit by them? Should we stop people being able to have free speech if there are any possible aggressive undertones to anything they say? Should we ban all violent television as it can rarely lead to people acting it out and harming themselves and others? Should we ban computer games with any bloodshed in them entirely because of all those examples of people who played them and shot up their school?

thats all i can think of right now. I might put a few more up in the morning.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i dont see what the banning of alchohol if it were discovered now has to do with anything, we are dealing with the real world.

what about areas that need to attract people for their own good (most of whom are smokers). In the heroin user drop in where i used to work, id say about 80% of them smoked, if they werent allowed to do so in the drop in then they might not come in, would not get help etc. Of course its up to them anyway, but still, it also served cheap, nourishing food for them and gave moral and physical support. But anyway.

Should we ban cars which give out toxic fumes when people could get on the bus? Should we ban gambling because of the criminal groups that it breeds? Should we stop people burning ANYTHING unnecesarily as that contributes to the pollution of the country? Should we stop people playing football because it can damage passers bys health if they get hit by a stray ball? Should we ban darts because people can get hit by them? Should we stop people being able to have free speech if there are any possible aggressive undertones to anything they say? Should we ban all violent television as it can rarely lead to people acting it out and harming themselves and others? Should we ban computer games with any bloodshed in them entirely because of all those examples of people who played them and shot up their school?

thats all i can think of right now. I might put a few more up in the morning.

We should encourage public transport use but, cars are there to get people around. Gambling is for people who think they can beat the odds and get some money out of bookmakers or casinos, its a risk with your own money you choose to take. Err, surely if it can be recycled, yes? Theres no point in burning something "just because". Football and darts are games devised for fun, entertainment and competition. Free speech is there for people to speak their mind and or get a point accross to an audience. Violent tv is there to shock and entertain. Computer games are to entertain.

What are ciggarettes for? Nothing. The only time a ciggarette becomes good is after youve smoked for a while that you need a ciggarette to kill the craving for ... another cig. Ive never heard anyone say "ive had a few cigs, im nicely fagged" but you hear folk saying "that was a good few beers, im nicely drunk/merry/whatever your desired effect". Cigs dont DO anything but give you cancer. Theres no rush, theres no.. point. The only thing it does is temp. kill your craving.

The difference between all the above things that can possibly have bad concequences is that each of them has a point. Ciggarettes dont

[Deepflow]

cigarettes do actually calm your nerves.

also theyre

well, not really, but people perceive them to be, and effectively thats just as good.

[1-X]

Nobody should be smoking nowadays. Nobody has a reason or an excuse to even begin. It's just so stupid and selfish, a waste of money, it's dirty and smelly, the huddled groups of pathetic people shivering on car parks to get their fix during their break have no dignity, and the expectant mothers doing the same at hospitals is unforgivable.

I hope the UK follows the Irish example. I'd also double the price of cigarettes and make patches/other quitting stuff free.

[JonnyBGood]

It's really simple. Does the government have the right to tell individuals what they can, and cannot, allow on their own property?

And deffeh don't talk crap please. I've heard many people go for a smoke, come back, and say "that hit the spot, I won't be needing one for a while" or something to that effect. If you haven't your experience with smokers must be either rather limited or spectacularly statistically unrepresentative.

[Qdeathstar]

dont smoke, just chew. When you spit it out, spit it so it reads (Let us smoke or else)

[Embroglio]

Originally Posted by 1-X

Nobody has a reason or an excuse to even begin.

Originally Posted by Deepflow

cigarettes do actually calm your nerves.

Originally Posted by 1-X

It's just so selfish

Inconsiderate people are selfish, not all smokers are inconsiderate.

Originally Posted by 1-X

a waste of money

I'd say paying for something which, as DF said, can calm your nerves is a perfectly fine use of money, I don't get why people smoke for other reasons though.

Originally Posted by 1-X

I hope the UK follows the Irish example. I'd also double the price of cigarettes and make patches/other quitting stuff free.

This'd stop alot of kids from starting smoking and make it easier should they decide to quit which, seeing as smoking's becoming less socially acceptable, may be a more common move. So yeah you're right there.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

The difference between all the above things that can possibly have bad concequences is that each of them has a point. Ciggarettes dont

As you mention, ultimately the only point is that these things are useful or enjoyed. For many things, such as playing a musical instrument, the usefulness is solely in the discipline, and the enjoyment is huge. The discipline is completely ignored socially, and depending on the company people take, they will often completely deny any enjoyment from playing an instrument, saying it's only because their parents got them into it, or whatever. Really, utility arguments are highly political, highly reactionary, and highly specious.

I used to like the liberty argument but I've lost passion for that now. The harm argument just strikes me as bizarre. The harm done is really very small. Last tabloid-style statistic I heard was that we already have a situation where alcohol causes more harm than smoking. Anti-smoking arguments often manage to one one hand leave out peer pressure and argue physical harm, then on the other hand leave out physical harm and argue to peer pressure. I think a more rounded view is that both of these are important. It is inevitable that alcohol, or more specifically heavy drinking, will attract more legal action in the future. If that matters to you, you should take caution in what side you take. I don't smoke heavily or drink much, and honestly I don't care either way.

[Qdeathstar]

It's really simple. Does the government have the right to tell individuals what they can, and cannot, allow on their own property?

Yes, IE


Murder
Rape
Incest
chambling
drink <21
smoke <18
gladitorial contests
slavery
discrimination
price rigging

ect
ect
ect

[queball]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Well, depends how you look at it really.
After all I don't see regulations on hygiene standards in kitchens as loss of freedom. Do I want to have the freedom to eat in some skanky, run down hell hole, where I will probably contract multiple weird and wonderful diseases? Er.... no!

Is that really about liberty? I see it more as a consumer-oriented service, just currently provided by the government. Men from health and Safety inspect shop at random and report what they find. A more libertarian solution would be to simply inform any customers to a nonconforming shop about the findings. But that would be hugely expensive, and a quick fine clears thing up much more easily. And sending people to prison is another action taken, but that's more about the fraud aspect. A lot of this law is simply certification.

And if you were poor, you might accept slightly lower standards, like you might find overseas.

In part, this is a law against rich cities and suburbia, with educated people who listen to their doctors, and pathetic smokers who on surveys admit they want to give up. The political will is there. The problems come to the people who are marginalised. Whenever you get this kind of situation, setting one set of people against another, there will be losers. Deffeh doesn't care about the rights of smokers. Fair enough. But I'm much more willing to listen to lovely people like Deepflow experiencing the problems faced by society's forgotten. When there's no difference between what people want and the effects of a law, there's only symbolic arguments. The problem is the middle classes railroading over reality.

</randomly themed pseudoargument>

[pablissimo]

I'm a publican. I decide to open a pub dovoted entirely to smokers. There are ample warnings on the doors saying that this pub what I run is entirely 'smokeful', and that you enter at your own risk. How in God's name can you justify having alaw saying 'no, in fact I cant run a pub under these circumstances and must abolish smoking because some non-smokers want in'. Jesus H Christ if this isn't the nanny state gone mad I don't know what is.

If there is sufficient demand for pubs with a totally non-smoking policy, the market will provide them. As it goes, there are pubs that are voluntarily offering a smoke-free atmosphere in the UK. Hey, sounds like the market's working! There's no legal restrictions forcing them to do so but they're doing it anyway because there's financial gain to be made in a lovely health-food, organic-veg, GM-free kind of way.

As to the 'smoking affects the health of others' bollocks, I'd love to see stats on how many tee-totallers are the subject of alcohol-related violence on an annual basis, compared with how many non-smokers are the subject of smoking caused, not just smoking 'related', illness. Seems a shame I can't find any figures, really, doesn't it?

[1-X]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

I decide to open a pub dovoted entirely to smokers. There are ample warnings on the doors saying that this pub what I run is entirely 'smokeful', and that you enter at your own risk. How in God's name can you justify having alaw saying 'no, in fact I cant run a pub under these circumstances and must abolish smoking because some non-smokers want in'.

You're forgetting about the staff. Listen to Lokken, he knows what he's talking about

Originally Posted by lokken

The people you should feel really sorry for are the bar staff who are risking their health for shit pay as they don't get compensated for the extra risk to their health, never mind who just visit the pub for a drink for a few hours now and again.

Originally Posted by pablissimo

As to the 'smoking affects the health of others' bollocks

Surely you're just ranting now and don't seriously believe that?

the whole point of the ban is to protect workers in public-service outlets from suffering the effect of inhaling second-hand smoke. Public establishments would eventually have to impose greater limits on smoking anyway, regardless of legislation because of the threat of legal action from staff.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by 1-X

the whole point of the ban is to protect workers in public-service outlets from suffering the effect of inhaling second-hand smoke. Public establishments would eventually have to impose greater limits on smoking anyway, regardless of legislation because of the threat of legal action from staff.

The State should ban desk jobs--because a sedentary job certainly isn't very healthy. In fact, work should probably be banned altogether: think of all the unhealthy stress that's caused by working!

[queball]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

If there is sufficient demand for pubs with a totally non-smoking policy, the market will provide them.

MrPeach already suggested one reason to suspect a market failure. Why not respond to that instead of repeating your earlier post like an autistic?

As it goes, there are pubs that are voluntarily offering a smoke-free atmosphere in the UK.

Proper pub style? Isn't there, like, maybe two?

[Androme]

if smoking is banned from a pub, isn't it more like a club then?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Yes, IE

If those were legal elsewhere in the country (ie outside, say, or don't require a license in other private places), you might have a point. As it is, you've missed it entirely.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deciduous

I thought your usual liberal line was something like "everyone should be allowed to do as they please so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else".

Yes, indeed. But this depends where it happens.

For instance, I like ocassionally going to gigs, clubs, etc where they play music far too loudly. This unquestionably damages my health (generally, the next day I've got a constant ringing in my ears). But the DJ isn't harming me because I've consented to this (by the act of going somewhere where I know they'll play loud music). If I don't like it, I shouldn't go in. If the music is affecting neighbours (i.e. people who live nearby who generally have not consented to this) then obviously it's wrong.

According to the anti-smoking logic, clubs should not be able to play loud music, as it damages people's (people inside the club) hearing. There are undoubtedly people who are in the club who don't like music so loud, and they shouldn't be harmed, right? Therefore, I demand legal powers for the state to ban people from listening to music above a certain level.

Ultimately, as I've said ad nausea if you don't like smokey pubs, or loud clubs, or whatever then don't go inside. The last few years have seen an increase in non-smoking sections, and I'm sure there will be plenty more of those non-smoking pubs/places (like that one in London recent). Similarly, if you hate loud music in pubs, there are places which offer a music-free environment.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by 1-X

Nobody should be smoking nowadays. Nobody has a reason or an excuse to even begin. It's just so stupid and selfish, a waste of money, it's dirty and smelly, the huddled groups of pathetic people shivering on car parks to get their fix during their break have no dignity, and the expectant mothers doing the same at hospitals is unforgivable.

I hope the UK follows the Irish example. I'd also double the price of cigarettes and make patches/other quitting stuff free.

as long as there is all the lovely tax money involved the state won't do jack about smoking. taxes rise from time to time but not enough to make a significant amount of people stop buying ciggies - my guess is the state makes a plus that way...
and at the end of the day smokers make me pay their cancer cure/funeral

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

and at the end of the day smokers make me pay their cancer cure/funeral

Yeah, it's not like the amount of tax income from cigarette sales vastly outweighs the total cost to the health service, or something like that. Yeah.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

as long as there is all the lovely tax money involved the state won't do jack about smoking. taxes rise from time to time but not enough to make a significant amount of people stop buying ciggies - my guess is the state makes a plus that way...
and at the end of the day smokers make me pay their cancer cure/funeral

So the state wants to keep people smoking for all the tax money, but you (not the state) have to pay for their funerals / cancer-care, etc? I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of tax...

Besides, does Germany pay for everyone funerals? Here you only get support if you're receiving other benefits (i.e. you have a very low income).

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

So the state wants to keep people smoking for all the tax money, but you (not the state) have to pay for their funerals / cancer-care, etc? I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of tax...

state expenses and taxes are increasing - the balance probably stays the same but i have less money.

EDIT: when i say 'i pay' for smokers' cancer care this of course means i pay money to the health insurance company / the state - i don't have enough time to pay every smoker personally.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Besides, does Germany pay for everyone funerals? Here you only get support if you're receiving other benefits (i.e. you have a very low income).

support is currently being cut down to 0 but the amount of state funded funerals shouldn't be underestimated. i could get u some rough figures since my dad runs a funeral home

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

support is currently being cut down to 0 but the amount of state funded funerals shouldn't be underestimated. i could get u some rough figures since my dad runs a funeral home

Well, I don't see what difference it makes really (the smoking thing). I mean, everybody dies and if you are giving support with funeral expenses you will have to give to everyone when they die anyway. So smoking just hurries the process up a bit.

It reminds me of a bit on the radio a few years ago. The DJ said "According to the newspapers, jogging 3 times a week decreases your chance of death. Unfortunately I think they've failed to take into account that the chance of death is pretty much 100% regardless of how much jogging you might do".

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

EDIT: when i say 'i pay' for smokers' cancer care this of course means i pay money to the health insurance company / the state - i don't have enough time to pay every smoker personally.

We guessed that bit.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, I don't see what difference it makes really (the smoking thing). I mean, everybody dies and if you are giving support with funeral expenses you will have to give to everyone when they die anyway. So smoking just hurries the process up a bit.

option 1) live a 'productive' live, never be sick, pay lots of taxes, have lots of babies and die of some 'natural' cause
option 2) constatntly poison yourself, be infertile and die aged 45 after numerous operations / a few years in hospital

of course these are 2 extremes but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It reminds me of a bit on the radio a few years ago. The DJ said "According to the newspapers, jogging 3 times a week decreases your chance of death. Unfortunately I think they've failed to take into account that the chance of death is pretty much 100% regardless of how much jogging you might do".

this of course depends on the definition of 'chance of death'

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

We guessed that bit.

i wasn't so sure when i read Dante's reply

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

option 1) live a 'productive' live, never be sick, pay lots of taxes, have lots of babies and die of some 'natural' cause
option 2) constatntly poison yourself, be infertile and die aged 45 after numerous operations / a few years in hospital

of course these are 2 extremes but you get the idea.

Option 1 causes more funeral costs, because you have to pay for the children as well.

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

this of course depends on the definition of 'chance of death'

There is only one meaning of 'chance of death'. 'Chance of death from 'x'' and 'Chance of death in time period 'y'' are different, and variables which have a sum over range of 1.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

There is only one meaning of 'chance of death'.

let me rephrase then: it depends on what the DJ from Dante's little story means when he talks about 'chance of death' since the piece of scientific work that inspired this DJ to his little rant most likely isn't talking about 'chance of death' at all but going more into detail.

i see creating amusement by mixing up definitions and fooling the gullible as a very low form of entertainment

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

let me rephrase then: it depends on what the DJ from Dante's little story means when he talks about 'chance of death' since the piece of scientific work that inspired this DJ to his little rant most likely isn't talking about 'chance of death' at all but going more into detail.

Of course, he was mocking the newspaper's headline not the research.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Of course, he was mocking the newspaper's headline not the research.

silly of the newspaper to expect its readers to know that we are all goign to die eventually... oh how i miss the days when the ability to read was still 'underground'

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

the market will provide them

This has already been addressed. In a pub where smoking is allowed, smokers can smoke and non-smokers are able to not smoke, whereas in a non-smoking pub non-smokers are still able to not smoke but smokers can obviously no longer smoke. Consequently, there will be little demand for exclusively non-smoking public places, as if there is even a fairly small minority of smokers among any certain group then this group is likely to go to a smoking area as here no-one's actions are constricted.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

This has already been addressed. In a pub where smoking is allowed, smokers can smoke and non-smokers are able to not smoke, whereas in a non-smoking pub non-smokers are still able to not smoke but smokers can obviously no longer smoke.

So basically most non-smokers don't really care that much about smoke (if they did, they could simply refuse to go to smokey environments, pressurise landlords to provide non-smoker nights, etc, etc). And despite this, people still want to use the force of the law to push something through which only bothers a vocal minority?

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's really simple. Does the government have the right to tell individuals what they can, and cannot, allow on their own property?

And deffeh don't talk crap please. I've heard many people go for a smoke, come back, and say "that hit the spot, I won't be needing one for a while" or something to that effect. If you haven't your experience with smokers must be either rather limited or spectacularly statistically unrepresentative.

Yes.

And no, im not talking crap, you didnt read what i said. The only reason a ciggarette is ever satisfying is because its ADDICTIVE, and if your addicted, you need another to calm your nerves. "I wont be needing one for a while" is pretty much the perfect example. Its not want, its need. You provided me with the perfect freakin quote there j.

[Dante Hicks]

What gives you the right to govern what happens on someone elses property?

[Deffeh]

Since when did you believe in property?

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

So basically most non-smokers don't really care that much about smoke (if they did, they could simply refuse to go to smokey environments, pressurise landlords to provide non-smoker nights, etc, etc).

Most don't do these things not because they don't care but because they care less than smokers. The only difference between this majority and the 'vocal minortiy' is that they prioritise socialising above their concerns with smoking - ie. they will not let the issue of smoking interfere with socialising by refusing to go to smoking areas with their friends or insisting that they go to a non-smoking area (thereby creating demand for non-smoking areas).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Since when did you believe in property?

What? Property always has existed, denying it's existence seems a little odd. It's just a matter of how it's governed.

A cornerstone of any defence of freedom is space. On a personal level, you need space to be able to think, breathe, etc, etc. On a more social level, you need private space to do your own thing. Various things (like loud music, smoking) are harmful to bystanders if performed in public, other things are offensive to some (gay sex, inter-racial dating, whatever). Clearly we don't want to make shouting illegal, but shouting in someones face is clearly not on. Context is everything.

As such, a reasonable solution is to give people space to do these things in their own area. This might range from their own home, to the ability to run their own club, pub, etc. All of these activities are vital to defend people's own culture, way of life, personal hobbies, etc, etc.

The problem with our current system is that the management of this space is massively skewed towards a privilidged minority who can pass on their freedoms to their descendents. An understandable (but regretable) reaction to this is statism - where a coercive force interferes with people's personal space. So people can't smoke pot in their own homes because they're doing "harm". They can't play loud music (if we follow the logic through) in their own clubs because of "harm". People who run their own bar can't allow their customers to smoke because of "harm". And so on.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

ie. they will not let the issue of smoking interfere with socialising by refusing to go to smoking areas with their friends

I see. So they don't care enough to let it interfere with their social life, but letting the state wade in with coercive measures is all good? That's a kind of worrying philosophy which seems to dominate public life these days.

"Hey, I can't be bothered to raise my kids properly or interact with the community generally, so I'll just vote to legalise police beatings on young offenders" and the like...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Yes.

And no, im not talking crap, you didnt read what i said. The only reason a ciggarette is ever satisfying is because its ADDICTIVE, and if your addicted, you need another to calm your nerves. "I wont be needing one for a while" is pretty much the perfect example. Its not want, its need. You provided me with the perfect freakin quote there j.

I use that expression after I eat food but nobody's suggesting banning me eating food in public. The point is that it's a desire for something. Needs aren't fixed things when you're talking about people. Potentially everything is psychologically addictive. You can't make a blanket statement covering what everyone, everywhere, ever felt about having a cigarette though.