Planetarion Forums - Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")

Nodrog · 15 Feb 2006, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

this is kind of the point I was making with the "stray cat cafe". Personally I wouldn't really like a situation where health and safety legislation was overruled by market forces.

Why? Whats the problem with letting everyone choose how healthily they want to live? Again, nothing is being hidden here - noone is advocating letting owners lie to, or mislead, their customers. Why do you feel unable to look after your own body?

noah02 · 15 Feb 2006, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Because as has been repeatedly pointed out, they arent public places; they are privately owned. Theres no difference between telling a pub owner what he can and cant do with his business, and telling a homeowner what they can and cant do in their living room. A smoking ban in pubs is completely equivalent to a smoking ban in private houses ("why should I be restricted from going to my friends house because he wants to poison his lungs??").

I have mates who smoke, mates who dont.

Non smoke in houses( referring to my mates for ppl who think its fun to call me a retard in rep) anymore as it cause the place to stink.

They go outside as do a lot of smokers this generation more than they use to.

And how is my house the same as a pub you retard.

Radical Edward · 15 Feb 2006, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Why? Whats the problem with letting everyone choose how healthily they want to live? Again, nothing is being hidden here - noone is advocating letting owners lie to, or mislead, their customers. Why do you feel unable to look after your own body?

Because abandonment of H&S regulations wouldn't just affect the customers, it would also affect staff, and quite possibly passers by who aren't even on the premises.

Phang · 15 Feb 2006, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: "This is a major victory for the simple union principle that people at work should not have to breathe in toxins."

please somebody argue this point, because I feel it's more significant than the weighing up of whether things count as civil liberties, or which one is more important.

Nodrog · 15 Feb 2006, 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

Because abandonment of H&S regulations wouldn't just affect the customers, it would also affect staff

The staff are in the same situation as the customers; noone is forcing them to work there

Quote:

and quite possibly passers by who aren't even on the premises.

hardly

Radical Edward · 15 Feb 2006, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The staff are in the same situation as the customers; noone is forcing them to work there

True, but then I think it is at least one of the responsibilities of government to determine minimum levels of safety, since often people do not have the knowhow themselves to determine safety issues.

Quote:

hardly

that depends on which aspects of H&S legislation are being applied, and where. It would seem somewhat perverse to suggest that market forces should be allowed to dictate whether machine operators are allowed to drink on the job or not.

Nodrog · 15 Feb 2006, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

True, but then I think it is at least one of the responsibilities of government to determine minimum levels of safety, since often people do not have the knowhow themselves to determine safety issues.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to drag out a varient of the "people are too stupid (except me!!!)" argument. Theres no justification for punishing everyone because you happen to think some people cant look after theirselves.

Quote:

It would seem somewhat perverse to suggest that market forces should be allowed to dictate whether machine operators are allowed to drink on the job or not.

Why? If youre working somewhere where machine operators drink, you should probably look for a new job.

Radical Edward · 15 Feb 2006, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to drag out a varient of the "people are too stupid (except me!!!)" argument. Theres no justification for punishing everyone because you happen to think some people cant look after theirselves.

I don't mean it in the sense of "people are too stupid" but just there being a minimum expectation of safety standards without people having to wander through all the minutae of whether a certain cable can deal with the various tensile stresses and strains required of it. It's just about standards.

Quote:

Why? If youre working somewhere where machine operators drink, you should probably look for a new job.

of course that wouldn't be particularly helpful if a drunken crane operator dropped a load of concrete on me when I am driving past the building site he is working on.

Yahwe · 15 Feb 2006, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I don't mean it in the sense of "people are too stupid" but just there being a minimum expectation of safety standards without people having to wander through all the minutae of whether a certain cable can deal with the various tensile stresses and strains required of it. It's just about standards.

let's follow your own logic then.

Primary cigarette smoking must meet that minimum safety standard because it is not banned. Ergo passive cigarette smoking must meet that minimum level of safety to be expected.

lokken · 15 Feb 2006, 16:25

People talk about "choice", but outside of large cities and restaurants, there is no choice, you want to go to the pub to socialise, you'll be going into a smoking establishment. The choice is simply to either put up with it, or basically not do very much.

If you tell someone they couldn't smoke, there's a number of people who would smack you one and you'ld never see your regulars again and they'd be off to another smokers pub - this levels the playing field and the smokers have a choice - step outside for 2 mins and have a fag, or don't. People who have sex are allowed to enter pubs, but that doesn't mean the other customers in there have to endure it (free porn lol on this forum amirite), it's the same with smoking now.

The benefits to the workforce, the customers are far greater than someone enjoying the pleasure of cigarette in an enclosed space where they are. You are still free to enjoy a cigarette anywhere outside of these designated places. The effect on freedom is so small, it's not worth bothering about. The benefits from this law are massive.

Radical Edward · 15 Feb 2006, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

let's follow your own logic then.

Primary cigarette smoking must meet that minimum safety standard because it is not banned. Ergo passive cigarette smoking must meet that minimum level of safety to be expected.

this is why drinking and operating heavy machinery is allowed under current health and safety regulations, because being drunk only affects that one person. if you want to follow my line of logic, do me the courtesy of doing so, rather than posting some distorted version of it.

lokken · 15 Feb 2006, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well this new legislation hasn't improved choice either, its just moved it the other way. If you wanted to increase choice there are other opitions.

Is nipping out for two minutes really a problem? Or waiting a couple of hours? Non-smokers have to sit there and stay and put up with it.

The point I was trying to make is that there was no point kicking up a fuss about something that simply redressed the balance, in favour of the majority who choose the healthier option of not smoking - it's a far preferable balance and there seems to be no reason to debate about freedom when there's little real effect. If there's no real difference in freedom, and a law is beneficial, what's there to debate, exactly? Infact one might argue there's far less - where one was forced constantly to put up with someone's else smoke to socialise, now all the smoker has to do is pop out for 2 minutes have a fag and return.

I agree that there should be choice among private clubs that actually aren't a sham, but they should be forced to reconsider the issue.

The problem i see is that with public houses, you either have it one way or the other (because pubs fear losing trade if they break from the norm outside the cities), and the new way just seems a lot better for people's health in general, so I don't see why people are whining about it.

lokken · 15 Feb 2006, 18:03

I don't like smoke or cars. I'd ban them both. I really would. Most people don't need either.

It might be possible to have licences for a certain # of pubs in a certain area, but that would effect trade so badly, that publicans probably would find it difficult to accept if they lost out.

Sometimes we have to put up with a situation that can't be practically resolved to keep everyone happy, and I think this one of them - except what we're going to get, is probably the best we are going to get.

JonnyBGood · 15 Feb 2006, 18:37

"My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom it's almost sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster."

lokken · 15 Feb 2006, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Best for who?

Let me take this a little further for you. OK so today we ban smoking in public places, and the legislation is barely reasonable. Yet pot is already illegal, as are Magic mushrooms and ecstasy and Coke. Now when did these decisions get made and why? Government's ban all sorts of stuff under the excuse of "public health" but again the arguments are different. Why not ban alcohol if we are banning stuff? Why not ban Hamburgers?

Once you accept the fact that the Government has a right to make shit laws then its all over.

I'm shocked that you care so much about a law which has so much benefit for health, that the tiny tiny tiny tiny effect it has on freedom is so utterly trivial.

Peas are carcenogenic in sufficient quantities. We don't ban them, because it makes no sense to. So I don't buy into your slippery slope argument.

To me this is just plain common sense.

Kurashima · 15 Feb 2006, 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

NON SMOKERS DIE EVERY DAY

And funnily enough, quite a few of them die of Lung Cancer and other Carcinoma's caused by second hand smoke.

Apologies for bursting the bubble there with a slightly out-of-left-field response.

G.K Zhukov · 15 Feb 2006, 20:02

Dear T&F, before you are loosing it here.

There was an uproar in Norway among certain sections of the public, when the goverment wanted to introduce such laws. Now, a year after, nobody complains anymore. Well, we got norwegian versions of Nodrog and so on, but they dont make up a very large group of the population after all.

Don't worry, you will get over it.

Nodrog · 15 Feb 2006, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

I'm shocked that you care so much about a law which has so much benefit for health, that the tiny tiny tiny tiny effect it has on freedom is so utterly trivial.

I'm shocked that you care so much about a law which places so much restriction on freedom, that the tiny tiny tiny tiny effect it has on health is so utterly trivial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Dear T&F, before you are loosing it here.

There was an uproar in Norway among certain sections of the public, when the goverment wanted to introduce such laws. Now, a year after, nobody complains anymore. Well, we got norwegian versions of Nodrog and so on, but they dont make up a very large group of the population after all.

Don't worry, you will get over it.

Its amusing when people I dont like display their true colours for all to see

furball · 15 Feb 2006, 20:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm shocked that you care so much about a law which places so much restriction on freedom, that the tiny tiny tiny tiny effect it has on health is so utterly trivial.

No doubt you're against the criminal law, given that it restricts the freedom of the individual to do actions that the State has decided that they should not do. The tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny effect it has on social order is no doubt utterly trivial.

Nodrog · 15 Feb 2006, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

No doubt you're against the criminal law, given that it restricts the freedom of the individual to do actions that the State has decided that they should not do.

What do you mean by 'freedom'? If youre talking about (eg) the "freedom to murder someone", then you are using the word in a queer way and we should probably clear that up first before debating specifics

JonnyBGood · 15 Feb 2006, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Dear T&F, before you are loosing it here.

There was an uproar in Norway among certain sections of the public, when the goverment wanted to introduce such laws. Now, a year after, nobody complains anymore. Well, we got norwegian versions of Nodrog and so on, but they dont make up a very large group of the population after all.

Don't worry, you will get over it.

You could introduce thousands of unjust laws and there wouldn't be a huge uproar about them after a few years. Most people are lazy and utterly apathetic over these things. Even people like, let's take T&F as an example here, are not going to quit their jobs working for the government and campaign militantly against this law if it's introduced. It is a minor restriction on freedom. But just because it's small doesn't mean it's not wrong.

furball · 15 Feb 2006, 20:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What do you mean by 'freedom'? If youre talking about (eg) the "freedom to murder someone", then you are using the word in a queer way and we should probably clear that up first before debating specifics

Murder's a very emotive word. May I suggest unjustifiably causing the death of another? I'm addressing the fact that I don't see how you (probably) justify using the State to stop people committing certain actions that cause the deaths of others yet permit them to smoke and so contribute to the risk of them contracting a carcinogenic disease?

Nodrog · 15 Feb 2006, 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Murder's a very emotive word. May I suggest unjustifiably causing the death of another? I'm addressing the fact that I don't see how you (probably) justify using the State to stop people committing certain actions that cause the deaths of others yet permit them to smoke and so contribute to the risk of them contracting a carcinogenic disease?

Again, its a consent thing. If 2 people consented to a duel to the death, then it would be wrong for the state to intervene.

furball · 15 Feb 2006, 20:49

But I don't consent to another person smoking in a place which I wish to be in. Why should I be forced to leave?

Torz · 15 Feb 2006, 20:51

I am all for it, all these drunken females in the one place!! Thats my only reason.

As a non smoker I really couldn't care if someone has a fag beside me aslong as they purposely don't blow it on my face. I wish to know how they plan to enforce the ban tho

JonnyBGood · 15 Feb 2006, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

But I don't consent to another person smoking in a place which I wish to be in. Why should I be forced to leave?

It's not your property. You're there by the consent of someone else. You have to be careful about what order you're using the word in.

Edit: By order I mean at what point consent comes into question. You can always be stupid and say "I don't consent to your not consenting" and then you could reply "well I don't consent to your not consenting to my not consenting". However this is rather obviously missing the point.

at0mic.c0w · 15 Feb 2006, 21:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

10 sources given there for starters, if you wish to go through each one and discredit it,then fine.
Because clearly the US National Research Council, the 1986 Report of the US Surgeon General, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer all have serious flaws in their decades of published research.
Pssh...I mean, c'mon. It's not like any of those are even remotely credible.

the 1992 EPA study - the so called culmination of all previous studies - was thrown down by a US federal court because apparently the data was 'cherry picked' to get a specific result. But it get's better: the EPA study shows that the risk goes up from 10:1'000'000 to 12.5:1'000'000 when exposed to ETS (the cited 20-30% increase) - that's statistically of no singnificance.
What the WHO report you mention says, is: 'Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk'.
Most of the other organisations base their claims on the EPA study.

PS: sorry if this was mentioned before, i didn't read the whole thread

PPS: i'm a non smoker, get away from me you filthy stinking bastards

SpaceMonkey · 15 Feb 2006, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by idimmu

Total ban 73.80% = 4561 votes
Partial ban 16.49% = 1019 votes
No change 9.71% = 600 votes
6180 Votes Cast

4561/600 = 7.6

For every person objecting there are 7 in favour.

Your maths is rubbish.

Sorry I was replying to meglamaniac's use of statistics and didn't realise they didn't match to the BBC poll. I wonder what happened there.

Your reading is rubbish.

Proteus · 15 Feb 2006, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torz

I wish to know how they plan to enforce the ban tho

£50 on-the-spot fines for smoking in a smoke-free area (I'm not kidding, that's the actual name of the soon-to-be criminal offence), and rather large fines (up to £2,500) for owners of premises that fail to prevent illegal smoking (plus £200 on-the-spot fines for failing to display "no smoking" signs).

Alessio · 15 Feb 2006, 23:24

I don't smoke, and I couldn't care less if anyone else does

People are getting way to fussy about the slightest inconveniences these days..
We're all being taught to act like woman, and I dont see that as an improvement

SpaceMonkey · 16 Feb 2006, 00:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

But I don't consent to another person smoking in a place which I wish to be in. Why should I be forced to leave?

You are not forced to leave but you may choose to do so, unlike smokers.

Blastoderm · 16 Feb 2006, 00:43

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before but doesn't NYC and LA in USA have some sort of ban on smoking (NYC's ban in restaurants/clubs/pubs/etc and LA's ban in the streets)?

If so, are they suffering?

Chunderbunny · 16 Feb 2006, 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

it's better to attempt compromise and co-existence rather than have one side obliterate the other's rights because they happen to have a majority.

As dante points out, this law destroys the ability of the market to make it's own decision.

you are aware of the phrase 'using a sledge hammer to crack a nut'?

This is what used to annoy me as a non smoker... Not the fact that people smoked, but when you got really obnoxious smokers who would refuse to compromise...

E.g. In a car. 'Hey I don't mind you smoking, but do you mind if I open the window?'

'Yes, I'm cold'

But obnoxious people exist whether theres a smoking ban or not....

Snurx · 16 Feb 2006, 01:39

It's shit. I know smoking is bad, and I'm for a betterment of workers health. But there are several ways of going on to a issue, and more laws/legislation is not the way forward. Not giving people choices is like sovjet russia or capitalists today and that is bad

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Dear T&F, before you are loosing it here.

There was an uproar in Norway among certain sections of the public, when the goverment wanted to introduce such laws. Now, a year after, nobody complains anymore. Well, we got norwegian versions of Nodrog and so on, but they dont make up a very large group of the population after all.

Don't worry, you will get over it.

Well, I dont complain about it because I go to special places that dont give a damn. But all the pubowners I know complain, or have gone bankrupt. Nobody complains beacause normal people dont give a shit after a while, but they have stopped going out in such large numbers. Now its even more shit to go out in Oslo, as all the nice people have dissapeared, the best pubs are closed, and the pesants come in flocks in the weekends (well, they always have, but hey, its still shit)

Your clothes reek of cheap perfume and the fat girl you did not want to dance with's sweat. And yes, you actually smell all the shitty people. Really good. You can see now, so its harder to get laid. People fight more. Oh and its become more expensive to go out, or so it seems.

There are positive effects. It's just that the negative are much more severe, when its a total ban instead of other methods.

G.K Zhukov · 16 Feb 2006, 01:46

1) I dont care if its shit to go out in Oslo. Its always been shit in Oslo. Oslo is a shitty city.

2) It's not like people who smoke give a damn about other people, is it? "Oh, you have astma, so what?" Given the choice, we all know they are going to do shit. So legislation is the way forward. If people want to polute themselfs, its fine by me. But then they better not polute my body. Becouse it should be MY CHOICE not to be poluted, if I wish so.
In reality, you advocate choices for the offenders here Snurx, and Im not very impressed by your stance.

Snurx · 16 Feb 2006, 01:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

2) It's not like people who smoke give a damn about other people, is it? "Oh, you have astma, so what?" Given the choice, we all know they are going to do shit. So legislation is the way forward. If people want to polute themselfs, its fine by me. But then they better not polute my body. Becouse it should be MY CHOICE not to be poluted, if I wish so.
In reality, you advocate choices for the offenders here Snurx, and Im not very impressed by your stance.

Thats were we differ, my communist friend. I agree on the smoking being bad, on smoking being unsocial and that it should not be okay to smoke everywhere. However, I'm a firm beliver in freedom, and choice. There are enough nonsmokers anywhere to open a smokefree place, and then they could just happily trod along there while us smokers could pollute eachother. Or at least allow smokingrooms. A total ban of anything (smoking, fascism or whatever) has never been my sollution, and I think bans almost always leads to more shit then you gain (it is in their very nature to do so)

There is always a middle road. Smoking rooms is the way is the best, in my opinion (or sections, depending on ventilation) for a pub/club, as you could have the best of both worlds. A room for smokers where nonsmokers, employees and their dogs would not be bothered. But that is MY opinion, and should I then force all pubs/clubs to do it?

Yahwe · 16 Feb 2006, 01:58

why are foreigners allowed in this thread?

freedom is a British concept, one we gave to our Empire, though much of that is now perverted.

I'm truly shocked that anyone even tried to get a foreigner to understand. why bother? It would be like we British (as foreigners) trying to understand japanese sexuality: we can't. We are foreign to their culture and the very construction of japanese minds

They do not feel as we feel.

Radical Edward · 16 Feb 2006, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

But I don't consent to another person smoking in a place which I wish to be in. Why should I be forced to leave?

well the decision as to whether the smoker is there depends on who owns the property. Say I invite you and a smoker into my house, it would not be your place to kick them out because you don't like them smoking, the argument there is that it is the same with pubs. Now public property is a different matter, and I can see that whatever the majority decides (via parliament) should be what is implemented.

furball · 16 Feb 2006, 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

well the decision as to whether the smoker is there depends on who owns the property. Say I invite you and a smoker into my house, it would not be your place to kick them out because you don't like them smoking, the argument there is that it is the same with pubs. Now public property is a different matter, and I can see that whatever the majority decides (via parliament) should be what is implemented.

The problem with this argument is the scarcity of smoke-free places to go that provide the same facilities (i.e. pubs). If just one person in your group of friends smokes, they will probably bitch at you all night if you don't go somewhere where they can satisfy their addiction. It's all very well saying that non-smokers have the freedom to not go to a smokey pub, but they have no real choice in the matter. What good is freedom if you don't have the power to use the alternative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

One key thing thast seems to be an issue here is the attitude of smokers. Smokers insisting they go somewhere they can smoke or smokers insisting they smoke in the car or whatever. Well as I said n o one is saying that there should not be more smoke free public places, and I no plenty of people who will quite rightly demand not to go into smokey places. Obviously if smokers are being twats that is also wrong, but have we reached the point where the only way we can resolve our differences is through Government legislation?

Yes, I'd say we have.

Radical Edward · 16 Feb 2006, 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

The problem with this argument is the scarcity of smoke-free places to go that provide the same facilities (i.e. pubs). If just one person in your group of friends smokes, they will probably bitch at you all night if you don't go somewhere where they can satisfy their addiction.

but ultimately it is a matter of choice. you don't have to go.

Quote:

It's all very well saying that non-smokers have the freedom to not go to a smokey pub, but they have no real choice in the matter.

well they can always not go to a pub at all. I know that sounds like a bit of a crap option, but if smoking is so disagreeable to someone, then they will not go to a smoky pub, just like I wouldn't go to a strip club, even if it had the only bar in town.
[/quote]
What good is freedom if you don't have the power to use the alternative?
[/quote]
You do have the power to use the alternative, which is not go there.

The problem I see with the argument that I think you are trying to make - that there is no choice between smoking and non smoking pubs, is that not all alternatives are available anyway. This is where it comes to the market forces thing. If there were enough call for non smoking pubs, then people would set them up, because they would get a clientele that would preferentially go to them over all the other available pubs.

furball · 16 Feb 2006, 10:25

But why should I be forced to not enjoy a drinking facility because people choose to smoke there? The alternative you present is one of not using something that I want to use. I don't see why it should be acceptable for a minority group to stop me from going to a pub (assuming that their smoke is the cause of me not going).

As for market forces, it is more profitable for pubs to allow smokers there because non-smokers are forced by their smoking friends to go to smoking pubs. Most pubs would rather ban smoking because of the effect on its employees, but it's not viable to do so without mass change - and that's only going to happen through government intervention.

Dante Hicks · 16 Feb 2006, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

As for market forces, it is more profitable for pubs to allow smokers there because non-smokers are forced by their smoking friends to go to smoking pubs.

If my friend "forced" me to go anywhere, they wouldn't be my friend for long.

And there's nothing stopping you exerting the same pressure and refusing to go into smoking pubs with them. Unless you're saying that you like your friends more than they like you. In which case

.

roadrunner_0 · 16 Feb 2006, 10:52

just as an aside, has anyone else seen that the MP's have excluded their own commons bar from the ban? bit shit if you ask me

furball · 16 Feb 2006, 10:53

Friendship is rarely decided on a single issue. The problem gets to be that if you do go to a non-smoking pub, they'll make an issue of the fact that they can't smoke. This gets to be so tiresome that you usually relent and just go to a smoking pub.

Dante Hicks · 16 Feb 2006, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

The problem gets to be that if you do go to a non-smoking pub, they'll make an issue of the fact that they can't smoke. This gets to be so tiresome that you usually relent and just go to a smoking pub.

Yeah I can really see how that justifies the use of the word "forced".

I wish the government forced people to pay taxes by gentle nagging.

Radical Edward · 16 Feb 2006, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

But why should I be forced to not enjoy a drinking facility because people choose to smoke there? The alternative you present is one of not using something that I want to use. I don't see why it should be acceptable for a minority group to stop me from going to a pub (assuming that their smoke is the cause of me not going).

again, this is the issue of the landlord, and not the other people. the landlord chooses to allow people onto his premises who smoke and tolerate others smoking, while they have their drinks. It isn't a drinking facility, it is a business in which a landlord wishes to earn money from selling things to certain groups of people. if you don't agree with some of his policies about who he likes in there so much that you don't go there, then obviously you are not that class of person who he feels is valuable enough to make concessions for.

Quote:

As for market forces, it is more profitable for pubs to allow smokers there because non-smokers are forced by their smoking friends to go to smoking pubs.

no they aren't. non-smokers choose to go to smoking pubs, because they do not consider smoking so intolerable that they won't go there with them. It's not like non smokers are dragged to the pub in chains and shackled to an ashtray.

Quote:

Most pubs would rather ban smoking because of the effect on its employees, but it's not viable to do so without mass change - and that's only going to happen through government intervention.

and why is it only going to happen through government intervention? If non smoking pubs were such a great thing, then why don't a load of pubs just set themselves up as that? and where do you get this "most pubs" from, I'd like to see a source on that.

Radical Edward · 16 Feb 2006, 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by furball

Friendship is rarely decided on a single issue. The problem gets to be that if you do go to a non-smoking pub, they'll make an issue of the fact that they can't smoke. This gets to be so tiresome that you usually relent and just go to a smoking pub.

if that is "being forced" then how about "forcing" your smoking friends to go somewhere non-smoking via the same means? or coming to some compromise whereby you all sit in the non smoking section and they can pop off for a fag every now and again? or have a week on-week off deal?

PSH · 16 Feb 2006, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

just as an aside, has anyone else seen that the MP's have excluded their own commons bar from the ban? bit shit if you ask me

That's just the icing on the cake! One rule for us..... etc.

There seems to be a lot of people who are in favour of the ban for health reasons but still frequent smoking establishments even when there is an alternative, I just can't take their arguments seriosly because if they felt that stongly about their health/smelling of fags etc. and there is such a majority of non-smokers surely they must have non-smoking friends they could socialise with in a non-smoking environment?

I'm sure someone else could have put that better but do you see my point?

Alki · 16 Feb 2006, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurashima

If youre a smoker and you dont like this point of view, please feel free to have my Asthma. You wont be a smoker for long after that.

im a smoker and an ashmatic

PSH · 16 Feb 2006, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alki

im a smoker and an ashmatic

My friend is also an asthmatic smoker but he smokes Silk Cut because "they are good for you". You will often find him alternating drags on his cigarette and inhaler.