| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The Doctor 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
 Posted: April 15 2009 at 06:04 |
Ok. Time for the Doctor to spout off. Sorry Mick, Raff, et al., but I strongly disagree.
I really see three points that are being made here. The first is that smoking around non-smokers is a risk to others' health. Can I assume that all non-smokers and those who agree with the ban never violate any traffic law. You always go within the speed limit, never roll through a stop sign, and so on, because to violate a traffic law endangers the life and well-being of everyone else on the road. In fact, I should be able to assume that you all don't drive at all, but instead take public transportation, because every automobile on the road increases the risk to the health of others. Of course, a lot of you drive, and thereby put the lives of others in increased danger, even if you drive safely.
Another point is we're all going to die. You will not outrun the reaper, even if you never come in contact with a smoker. Suck it up. Deal with it. And remember "seasons don't fear the reaper, nor do the wind, the sun or the rain."
The second point being made is that it's a drain on the health care system. I have two responses to this. The first is that tobacco is heavily taxed, thereby contributing money to the state. Also, in the US, the states have been successfully suing tobacco companies for reimbursement of health care expenditures for years now.
My second response is that it isn't only smoking that drains the health care system. The previously mentioned driving also drains the health care system through accidents. Perhaps cars should be banned. Further, people who are overweight drain the health care system because they often have increased health problems. Perhaps they should be put on enforced diets. And finally, and the most draining of all is procreation. Children are probably the biggest drain on the health care system. Perhaps, prospective parents should have to pass an income test before being allowed to procreate. Or even better, perhaps they should be made to post a large cash bond before being allowed to have children in order to make sure that they can pay for all health care costs for their children. (A note here, I'm not advocating these things nor do I mean this in any way to be offensive to those overweight or those who have children or automobiles).
The third point I see being made is the annoyance factor. I can only say here...Hello!!! We live among other people. That means we're going to be annoyed. One thing I've learned in my 39 years of life is that people are  annoying. I'm annoyed at least 3 or 4 times everytime I leave my home. If everything that annoyed me were banned by the government, 99.9% of the human race would be unable to leave their homes.
In conclusion, let me say, when we're all perfect, nobody drives, we're all thin and in good shape, only the rich can have children and we all stop being so damned annoying, I'll be happy to not smoke around you.
Edited by The Doctor - April 15 2009 at 06:06
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
 |
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: April 15 2009 at 02:19 |
Dean - fantastic post  ; I should be so eloquent, but regretably, I'm not 
On a personal note - I've been smoking for 20 years; I was a late starter & fully accept this was the worst decision I ever made. Similarly to Dean, I accept and support the smoking ban in pubs/clubs (even if it does mean the chillout rooms in clubs where I occasionally DJ are virtually empty) but I do enjoy a cigarette with a pint - in the past in a pub, you'd stay with your own group of friends all evening (subjecting the non smokers among them to 2nd hand smoke & giving their clothing the added benefit of smelling like an ashtray in the morning), nowadays, you have to leave the pub to indulge... and in doing so I've found you tend to speak more to total strangers who share the addiction.
I'm not saying the smoking ban will make you more friends, though I've met & become friendly with quite a few people in my local I'd not have otherwise spoken to, I'm just saying in a roundabout way that whatever the weather, I quite enjoy the fact I have to leave the pub for an occasional 10 minute fume.
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 19:35 |
^ Smoking like anything is wonderful if you can control it.... I know what Dean means about as soon as you would want to light up every non smoker cling like flies to sh$t 
Traffic sang..." Light Up Or leave me Alone" and as a previous smoker I agree with the sentiment and the fact that most smokers are more than considerate of the masses.
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 19:09 |
|
pffff... don't try making a saint out of me hahhah... I like my bad reputation. If people actually believed I was a nice guy who actually does care about the feelings of others my world might crash down around me. That was supposed to be a secret.
I smoke.. it's my problem. and Raff's having to worry about my health..which is why I will quit. I owe her that at the VERY least. I don't need to make it nuisance or even a hazard for others. I don't smoke in public places.. don't DARE of smoking around guests or non-smoking friends. That is the way I was raised.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 19:08 |
Just an observation, but it is not smokers who are making any objections here.
Hopefully some of you will have noticed that I have not been posting particularly seriously in this thread. I make no apologies for this - I have not ridiculed anyone but myself with these humorous posts, but in doing so I hope I have made it crystal clear that i) I am a smoker and ii) I do not oppose any ban on smoking. I have no axe to grind, no point to make, no protest to mount and essentially no defence to offer.
On a 100% voluntary level I support the ban, since non-smokers are in the majority I fully appreciate that when put to a democratic vote in every single working place on the entire planet the result will be a unanimous vote in favour of a ban on smoking and I would have no argument with the result. Non-smokers should not be subjected to my habit, anymore than I should not be subjected to habits of others - I respect the personal space of others and expect the same in return. I do not feel that a ban (officially imposed or voluntary) is restricting my civil liberties, because to be honest as a Brit the concept is alien to me; nor do I believe it is the thin edge of the Distopian wedge - if I distrusted our Government or our system of Government that much I would be living in the wrong country.
I would not dream of imposing my opinion or habits on anyone else and the merest thought of blowing smoke in someone else's face, even by accident, abhors me. At the moment it does appear that wherever I go to smoke is suddenly attractive to non-smokers - I find a secluded spot with a modicum of shelter that is away from doorways and open windows and all of a sudden it is a desirable location that some non-smoker wants to stand in to inhale the diesel-fumes of the convoy of Toyota Landcruiser's ferrying the kids to school. If I were paranoid I'd get a persecution complex, then if I were a misanthrope I'd get a dog, so perhaps it is not the location that is so appealing to them.
Similarly I don't appreciate other people dumping a financial guilt-trip on me - as a smoker I contribute towards the £10,000,000,000 tax revenue generated by tobacco products in the UK, that funds almost 10% of the income required to operate the NHS - that's without considering the direct contribution to the system that I make via National Insurance payments. In 52 years I have taken very little from the service, (and I am grateful for that), and I will feel bad about any burden I impose on the system by any self-inflicted harm I will undoubtedly suffer in later life as a result of my addiction, then I felt a burden to the system when I queued in the doctor's surgery for a valid, non-smoking related ailment.
There is no self-delusion involved here, my dad and grandfather both died of strokes before they reached retirement age - that could be attributed to smoking, it could be genetic, it could be bacon sandwiches - if I make it past 65 I'll let you know. Sadly, I have personally known two people die from lung-cancer - one was a heavy smoker; the other a confirmed non-smoker who never worked nor lived in a smoking environment in their entire life, (and before anyone asks, I never smoked in her presence) - not every case is attributable to smoking or passive smoking but I accept that the majority are. I do not need proof that passive smoking is bad, even when one of the original studies has been demonstrated to have been flawed, common sense says it is so - reason and logic says it is so. Either way I know that the risks of strokes, heart disease, respiratory problems and cancer are increased significantly by smoking - I know that inhaling anything other than pure air into my lungs will result in damage - I am stupid, but I'm not lacking in knowledge, facts or an understanding of how the respiratory system works - it is irrational, but it is not delusional.
Conversely will you not hear me extolling the pleasures of smoking, (I did once make a sticker to cover the Government Health warning that said "IT IS BIG AND IT IS CLEVER" - but that hopeless attempt at a joke is as far as I'll go), or belittling the efforts of those who have successfully given up or calling for a world-wide ban on chewing-gum or farting in pubs.
It has taken over two hundred years to improve the working conditions of all working people in offices and factories, none of this has been easy to achieve, nor has it been cost-free. Health and Safety is regarded as a "bit of a joke" when it appears to defy logic, but it is there for a reason and it was fought for by the workers, not the employers. Protecting employees from harm is not infringing their rights - forcing them to work in a health damaging environment is.
Smoking is a personal choice - restricting where and when that can be excercised is not infringing that choice. Smoking is banned at Petrol Stations - I don't see anyone objecting to that.
|
|
What?
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 18:55 |
|
I'd like to add something to what Brian said in the above post. Micky is a smoker, yet whenever we eat out we always choose to sit in the non-smoking section of the restaurant, and he NEVER smokes indoors at home. That means that there are smokers who are capable of seeing beyond their own rights, and consider those of other people as well.
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 18:42 |
 manofmystery wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
Gee do you think they should ban guns in bars? Or people can just walk up to you an punch you if you work in a bar? Or what if someone just walked up to you and put out your smoke because they don't like it? Anything goes right.? Where does the smokers right to smoke override someone not wanting to experience it? Maybe at the same time you smoked in front of me I could release cyanide into your breathing airspace? That would be OK too right?
Show me a complete clinical study that carbon monoxide released in the air doesn't cause harm to a human being in the workplace? Show me one study that asbestos doesn't cause lung disease? You certainly don't mind that these two toxic elements are removed from the workplace by government law do you? (Even if you don't under your argument don't you think they should have to disclose the information to potential workers? Do you really think they would if they were not compelled to do so?) I can show you many over a long period of time to show you cigarette smoke in the workplace causes asthma, emphysema and lung cancer in patients that do not smoke. Even if one person contracts those symptoms it is too much. How is banning any of this losing our liberty? Our liberty to inflict harm on another person is not a liberty it is a crime. In another thought financially it is a lot cheaper to point a smoker to the door than pay for the employees health care for a disease they contract not of their own making. I would rather have heroin addicts and coke addicts frequent a bar with their addictions than smokers. At least theirs do not get airborne and affect the general customers or employees welfare.
|
Classic thing you did there by arguing from a selfish place that my arguments are in fact selfish. By the way, since much of your arguments seem to center on the assumption (remember what happens when we assume) that my view is clouded by my own lust for cigarettes let me remind you that I don't smoke and add that I don't really care to be around someone who is smoking. We have this in common. What we don't have in common is the desire to punish smokers simply because we decided not to do so ourselves.
As for your barrage of emotional questions:
So, you view smoking around you is akin to punching you in the face, or spraying you with cyanide, or shooting you. That's fine, go somewhere without smokers. If you can't find somewhere else to go without smokers than accept that the majority of people there don't feel the same way you do and maybe they don't deserve to have their rights thrown out because your uncomfortable.
Again, if you feel so strongly then either find some investors and open your own place or take it up with the club/bar/restraunts owner. Hell, take a group of likeminded people with you. If you win him/her over then more power to you but if you don't then don't run whining to the government that you aren't comfy going there.
Garion81 wrote:
Lets thank our lucky stars you don't run anything. You protest way too much. Peoples right to have a healthy workplace out-ways your selfish right to smoke when other people are present. This is coming from a former smoker. BTW this law costs very little to enforce. Most of the bar owners already enforce it. |
Even if I ran anything how would my handling of this situation hurt you? I'm not advocating holding anybody down and blowing smoke in their face. What I'm advocating is allowing the free market (which is made up of you, me, and everyone with a dollar in their pocket) to decide whether or not they want smoke in bars/restraunts. If the majority of customers decide they no longer want to deal with the smoke, as I suspect they would, then smoking will be banned there. What this system does is allow smokers the relocate to somewhere they are accepted which is more than anyone can say for these blanket city wide bans. I don't believe it selfish to want to see options exist. I do believe it selfish (and dangerous) to allow the government to "just walked up to you and put out your smoke because they don't like it". It shouldn't be the knee jerk reaction of people to demand the government do everything for them or solve every problem they face. |
I am no more punishing smokers by saying they can't smoke in public than I am a drinker by not letting him drive a car while drinking. Do what ever you like but when it comes to harming others by your actions then it needs to be restricted or controlled. That is why we have a government. Before the California legislature enacted the 1998 ban voters overwhelming shot down a proposition in 1994 that would have allowed limited smoking in restaurants.So in that sense the people did vote. What would happen in your scenario is the business owner not wanting to refuse a buck would allow people to smoke there. This is what we already had. The results were non smokers did not go to such places. Certainly the business owners who protested their demise because of the law were actually surprised to find they had more money coming in because people were willing to come into smoke free facilities. The employees made more money in tips and they paid more taxes and it was good for everyone.
My argument has been from the beginning about the rights of workers in the workplace. It was the reason the ban was in effect in the first place. To heck with the customers as they can pick up and move on any time they want. Not so the workers. The studies are out there that show second hand smoke is harmful and those exposed to it over prolonged periods of time are at even more risk.
There are many small towns that have just a few places of employment. People who do not have transportation or the means to move about are limited to these facilities for work. In other words they don't have real choice to find gainful employment elsewhere. The law has to be fair in all circumstances and I think it is fair. These business owners would never have imposed such a ban on their own. It has been proven that business owners will not police themselves. That is why I used the imagery I did, not for emotionalism. Those things like asbestos and carbon monoxide are certainly things that government has banned from the workplace for reasons of worker safety. If businesses were doing it themselves there would be no reason for the law. While they may not appeal to your sense of libertarian point of view sometimes you can't get around the fact that some laws are good and affective and protect and benefit most everyone.
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 16:39 |
Garion81 wrote:
Gee do you think they should ban guns in bars? Or people can just walk up to you an punch you if you work in a bar? Or what if someone just walked up to you and put out your smoke because they don't like it? Anything goes right.? Where does the smokers right to smoke override someone not wanting to experience it? Maybe at the same time you smoked in front of me I could release cyanide into your breathing airspace? That would be OK too right?
Show me a complete clinical study that carbon monoxide released in the air doesn't cause harm to a human being in the workplace? Show me one study that asbestos doesn't cause lung disease? You certainly don't mind that these two toxic elements are removed from the workplace by government law do you? (Even if you don't under your argument don't you think they should have to disclose the information to potential workers? Do you really think they would if they were not compelled to do so?) I can show you many over a long period of time to show you cigarette smoke in the workplace causes asthma, emphysema and lung cancer in patients that do not smoke. Even if one person contracts those symptoms it is too much. How is banning any of this losing our liberty? Our liberty to inflict harm on another person is not a liberty it is a crime. In another thought financially it is a lot cheaper to point a smoker to the door than pay for the employees health care for a disease they contract not of their own making. I would rather have heroin addicts and coke addicts frequent a bar with their addictions than smokers. At least theirs do not get airborne and affect the general customers or employees welfare.
|
Classic thing you did there by arguing from a selfish place that my arguments are in fact selfish. By the way, since much of your arguments seem to center on the assumption (remember what happens when we assume) that my view is clouded by my own lust for cigarettes let me remind you that I don't smoke and add that I don't really care to be around someone who is smoking. We have this in common. What we don't have in common is the desire to punish smokers simply because we decided not to do so ourselves.
As for your barrage of emotional questions:
So, you view smoking around you is akin to punching you in the face, or spraying you with cyanide, or shooting you. That's fine, go somewhere without smokers. If you can't find somewhere else to go without smokers than accept that the majority of people there don't feel the same way you do and maybe they don't deserve to have their rights thrown out because your uncomfortable.
Again, if you feel so strongly then either find some investors and open your own place or take it up with the club/bar/restraunts owner. Hell, take a group of likeminded people with you. If you win him/her over then more power to you but if you don't then don't run whining to the government that you aren't comfy going there.
Garion81 wrote:
Lets thank our lucky stars you don't run anything. You protest way too much. Peoples right to have a healthy workplace out-ways your selfish right to smoke when other people are present. This is coming from a former smoker. BTW this law costs very little to enforce. Most of the bar owners already enforce it. |
Even if I ran anything how would my handling of this situation hurt you? I'm not advocating holding anybody down and blowing smoke in their face. What I'm advocating is allowing the free market (which is made up of you, me, and everyone with a dollar in their pocket) to decide whether or not they want smoke in bars/restraunts. If the majority of customers decide they no longer want to deal with the smoke, as I suspect they would, then smoking will be banned there. What this system does is allow smokers the relocate to somewhere they are accepted which is more than anyone can say for these blanket city wide bans. I don't believe it selfish to want to see options exist. I do believe it selfish (and dangerous) to allow the government to "just walked up to you and put out your smoke because they don't like it". It shouldn't be the knee jerk reaction of people to demand the government do everything for them or solve every problem they face.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 15:38 |
|
Dunno about some of you, but I'm having a fag and going to bed. Unless the PC Police come round first.
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 15:23 |
stonebeard wrote:
Micky your condescension and mocking tone is not appreciated.
"mostly spoken by those who don't have a frickin clue. "
Shine down your wisdom on all of us PLEASE! 
Thanks for again reminding me why I don't take words you type seriously.
|
why do you think people are losing patience with the posts in here.... that sword cuts two ways....don't delude yourselves to think what you are are spewing are taken seriously at all. what do you know of rights. Get at job.. raise a family...understand what medical bills are and what they can do to your finanaces and your life then talk about real life issues. If that is condescending... so be it. Earned by pushing a argument too far and one with no merit. RIghts? pfff... something in a textbook to you. A problem when YOUR rights are infringed.. but nary a thought given to others.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 14:52 |
Micky your condescension and mocking tone is not appreciated. "mostly spoken by those who don't have a frickin clue. " Shine down your wisdom on all of us PLEASE! Thanks for again reminding me why I don't take words you type seriously.
|
|
|
|
Pekka
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 03 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 6457
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 13:04 |
|
We've had that cigarette ban for some years now in Finland and I like it. It's nice to go to gigs and not smell like sh*t afterwards. But as my girlfriend pointed out when we were sitting in a smoker's section in a restaurant in Paris some time ago, the cigarette smoke and smell despite being somewhat uncomfortable add to the atmosphere in a somehow nice way. But all in all it's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 08:29 |
Garion81 wrote:
Lets thank our lucky stars you don't run anything. You protest way too much. Peoples right to have a healthy workplace out-ways your selfish right to smoke when other people are present. This is coming from a former smoker. BTW this law costs very little to enforce. Most of the bar owners already enforce it.
|
damn right.... and 2nd'd as a present and unrepentant smoker... spare me all this 'rights' bullsh*t.. mostly spoken by those who don't have a frickin clue. You do not have the right to yell "bomb'. or 'fire' in a public place.. the right to carry a gun where you want... you do not have the right to endanger others health. You do your own... be happy with that if you want to be a crusader for personal rights hahhaha
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 08:10 |
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Smoking is different than your typical suicidal drug abuse ... it harms others. Like Garion81 said: Even in privately owned businesses there are still employees who may not want to be injured by smokers. Sure, you can claim that it's their free choice. But in this case I'll say: to hell with freedom, let's save some lifes!
BTW: I'm really shocked to see how smokers create their own reality, where common sense doesn't apply. Quit smoking right now ... it might safe your life, it *will* safe you quite some money, and you won't be bothered by smoking bans anymore.
|
I hope you're not trying to say that smoking is as harmful to society as hard drugs like crack and meth. Because from what I've seen that couldn't be farther from the truth. [/QUOTE] Well ... define "harmful to society". I'd say that from an economic standpoint smoking is much more expensive than any hard drug ... simply because there are a *lot* more users. Here in Germany for example you can be unemployed and if you get lung cancer the public will pay for the treatment, which is very expensive.
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 07:03 |
manofmystery wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
^ Again you forget people who work there who don't smoke. Cigarettes have been proven to release noxious harmful fumes if someone inhales them. What about their rights to work in an unharmful environment? With your line of thinking then any owner can subjugate their employees to whatever hazardous environment they please? Give me a break. Liberty goes only so far as you don't tread on someone else's rights. Don't give me the line they can go someplace else. It means they can go anywhere to work and still have the same knowledge that their work environment is reasonably safe.
|
I believe free will allows you not to take the job knowing smoke will be involved. You presume either that A)workers are ignorant to the hazards of the job they are taking or B)workers should be allowed to take a job then demand immediate changes to suit their needs. It also seems that you believe government must actively regulate who receives what liberties where and when. If you allow for both options in a free society then the customers will decide what is important to them without the interference of a central bureaucracy which, incidently, is no better at making everyday decisions effecting your life than you yourself (if someone disagrees with this then I am sad for you).
Garion81 wrote:
Owners in California leading up to the ban said they would lose all sorts of business. In realty it was the opposite as people who refused to go into a bar because of the smoke started top come in and stay longer. Most of the smart bars developed a nice outside smoking area. You know what all the same people who smoked still came into the bar.
|
Then let the smokers have their bars and allow other entrepreneurs to open their own smokeless bars, which they will, because there is a market. Smokers are already looked down upon and taxed through the teeth, can't you just let them have somewhere to smoke? Instead of having the government force them to bend to your will why not create an alternative so no one is oppressed. And if you know a certain bar still allows smoking you could simply avoid that bar or implore the owner to change his/her policies. Incidently, I believe smokers would still like to be able to have a cigarette on bad weather days.
Garion81 wrote:
After a few weeks of grumbling they accepted it as nothing more than a minor inconvenience. |
How many minor inconveniences till we lose our liberty? Precident like this is a dangerous gift to give government beaurecrats. Next thing you know you won't be able to eat the same foods (oh wait) or buy the same lightbulbs (oh wait) that you used to and it will continue like this till one day you wake up in your government approved bed, in your government approved house, in your government built Levett town, where you will sit and wait for the hour a day you'll be allowed to use the electricity required to listen to your government approved music. Why grumble when it is easier to let someone else make your decisions for you anyway? I mean their choices will always fall in line with the ones you'd have made, right? |
That deserves multiple clappies. 
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 06:41 |
jammun wrote:
What I don't understand is that, after I quit smoking cigarettes after 25-odd years, I was not allowed to smoke a cigar in a bar, because the cigar smoke offended the cigarette smokers. |
Cigar smoke is the most annoying. I'd rate pipe smoke as less annoying than cigarettes.
And sometime the smoker is more annoying than the cigar: 
Edited by Slartibartfast - April 14 2009 at 06:53
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 03:08 |
Garion81 wrote:
[QUOTE=manofmystery][QUOTE=Garion81]^
[QUOTE=Garion81]
I would rather have heroin addicts and coke addicts frequent a bar with their addictions than smokers. At least theirs do not get airborne and affect the general customers or employees welfare. |
While I sympathise with your views to a very large extent I had the (mis)fortune to serve in the Metropolitan Police in London in the 1980s and I can assure you that if you ever came into contact with a bar full of skagheads you'd welcome back the smokers with open arms.
Where did they get the money from for their gear in the first place? Your mum, the gas station, whoever they've robbed. Okay not in every case but in a significant number of them.
Ever been physically attacked by a paranoid heroin user?
Thought not.
Sorry 'cos I genuinely DO agree with a lot of what you said, but I could not let the above sentence stand without comment.
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: April 14 2009 at 01:07 |
manofmystery wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
^ Again you forget people who work there who don't smoke. Cigarettes have been proven to release noxious harmful fumes if someone inhales them. What about their rights to work in an unharmful environment? With your line of thinking then any owner can subjugate their employees to whatever hazardous environment they please? Give me a break. Liberty goes only so far as you don't tread on someone else's rights. Don't give me the line they can go someplace else. It means they can go anywhere to work and still have the same knowledge that their work environment is reasonably safe.
|
I believe free will allows you not to take the job knowing smoke will be involved. You presume either that A)workers are ignorant to the hazards of the job they are taking or B)workers should be allowed to take a job then demand immediate changes to suit their needs. It also seems that you believe government must actively regulate who receives what liberties where and when. If you allow for both options in a free society then the customers will decide what is important to them without the interference of a central bureaucracy which, incidently, is no better at making everyday decisions effecting your life than you yourself (if someone disagrees with this then I am sad for you).
Garion81 wrote:
Owners in California leading up to the ban said they would lose all sorts of business. In realty it was the opposite as people who refused to go into a bar because of the smoke started top come in and stay longer. Most of the smart bars developed a nice outside smoking area. You know what all the same people who smoked still came into the bar.
|
Then let the smokers have their bars and allow other entrepreneurs to open their own smokeless bars, which they will, because there is a market. Smokers are already looked down upon and taxed through the teeth, can't you just let them have somewhere to smoke? Instead of having the government force them to bend to your will why not create an alternative so no one is oppressed. And if you know a certain bar still allows smoking you could simply avoid that bar or implore the owner to change his/her policies. Incidently, I believe smokers would still like to be able to have a cigarette on bad weather days.
Garion81 wrote:
After a few weeks of grumbling they accepted it as nothing more than a minor inconvenience. |
How many minor inconveniences till we lose our liberty? Precident like this is a dangerous gift to give government beaurecrats. Next thing you know you won't be able to eat the same foods (oh wait) or buy the same lightbulbs (oh wait) that you used to and it will continue like this till one day you wake up in your government approved bed, in your government approved house, in your government built Levett town, where you will sit and wait for the hour a day you'll be allowed to use the electricity required to listen to your government approved music. Why grumble when it is easier to let someone else make your decisions for you anyway? I mean their choices will always fall in line with the ones you'd have made, right? |
Gee do you think they should ban guns in bars? Or people can just walk up to you an punch you if you work in a bar? Or what if someone just walked up to you and put out your smoke because they don't like it? Anything goes right.? Where does the smokers right to smoke override someone not wanting to experience it? Maybe at the same time you smoked in front of me I could release cyanide into your breathing airspace? That would be OK too right?
Show me a complete clinical study that carbon monoxide released in the air doesn't cause harm to a human being in the workplace? Show me one study that asbestos doesn't cause lung disease? You certainly don't mind that these two toxic elements are removed from the workplace by government law do you? (Even if you don't under your argument don't you think they should have to disclose the information to potential workers? Do you really think they would if they were not compelled to do so?) I can show you many over a long period of time to show you cigarette smoke in the workplace causes asthma, emphysema and lung cancer in patients that do not smoke. Even if one person contracts those symptoms it is too much. How is banning any of this losing our liberty? Our liberty to inflict harm on another person is not a liberty it is a crime. In another thought financially it is a lot cheaper to point a smoker to the door than pay for the employees health care for a disease they contract not of their own making. I would rather have heroin addicts and coke addicts frequent a bar with their addictions than smokers. At least theirs do not get airborne and affect the general customers or employees welfare.
Lets thank our lucky stars you don't run anything. You protest way too much. Peoples right to have a healthy workplace out-ways your selfish right to smoke when other people are present. This is coming from a former smoker. BTW this law costs very little to enforce. Most of the bar owners already enforce it.
Edited by Garion81 - April 14 2009 at 01:31
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: April 13 2009 at 21:56 |
|
What I don't understand is that, after I quit smoking cigarettes after 25-odd years, I was not allowed to smoke a cigar in a bar, because the cigar smoke offended the cigarette smokers.
|
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
Gustavo Froes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 06 2008
Location: Rio,Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 385
|
Posted: April 13 2009 at 20:09 |
WaywardSon wrote:
Today,A new law was passed : it is now a criminal offence to light up a ciggarette in a bar or club in Sao Paulo-Brazil.
As an ex smoker I am quite happy about this because I won“t be tempted to smoke.
How do you feel about smoking in bars/clubs? |
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Really? That means this law should be coming to Rio quite soon....
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
No Smoking in Bars/Clubs?
