/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
|
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 5678> |
| Author | |||
manofmystery 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: January 26 2008 Location: PA, USA Status: Offline Points: 4335 |
 Posted: April 14 2009 at 16:39 |
||
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.
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. |
|||
 |
|||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: April 14 2009 at 18:42 |
||
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?" |
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|||
|
|||
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46833 |
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|||
|
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|||
|
|||
|
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 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?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: The Heartland Status: Online Points: 16913 |
Posted: April 15 2009 at 06:21 |
||
|
Where's Bill Hicks when we need him
 Probably havin' a Camel in hell.  I miss that guy!
|
|||
|
|||
|
mrcozdude
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2007 Location: Devon,UK. Status: Offline Points: 2078 |
Posted: April 15 2009 at 06:24 |
||
|
I wish Bill Hicks was on the pa.I'm a non-smoker (a pretty bad non-smoker) but I think Hick's points of smoking are extremely valid for today and could spark some intresting conversation.It makes we wonder what would Hicks and Zappa think about this.
From what I've gathered from most smokers it's not the smoking ban that pisses them off the most,it's thought of what will happen beyond this.As I said briefly before It's not good to be told where to smoke,what to eat and how much drink and I think people believe that this could lead to be bigger restrictions. One thing i'm proud of Gordon Brown doing is not increasing the price of alcohol.How would England survive? I'm sure wet and cold smokers were jumping for joy. |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: April 15 2009 at 06:45 |
||
|
I'm probably repeating myself, but what the hell. I don't mind people smoking tobacco as long as I don't have to breathe it in. Even if second hand smoke were perfectly safe, smoking tends to take all the oxygen out of the room. In public establishments there should be good ventilation if smoking inside is allowed.
And hey, look at the bright side, if you have to go outside you usually get to hang out with fellow smokers.
|
|||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gustavo Froes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 06 2008 Location: Rio,Brazil Status: Offline Points: 385 |
Posted: April 15 2009 at 08:22 |
||
Second hand smoke isn't perfectly safe,but then again,what is?The chances of getting even the slightest health problems related to this are so remote(and believe me, I had my fair share of smokers all around me over the years),that I'm forced to think this is just propaganda.Please notice the brainswash that we're submitted to in order to believe cigarettes are a serious threat to your health.And I'm not saying it isn't,but it's just everywhere,Holywood particulary enjoys practicing this.If you can control yourself and have conscience of th possible issues smoking may cause in the future,there's simply no reason for this type of law to be approved,mainly because smokers are treated more and more with twisted noses all around.
|
|||
|
|||
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: April 15 2009 at 16:55 |
||
Healthy people put more strain on the health care system because they're alive longer, into very old age, and so with that comes more social support. I don't know how the healthy people get the balls to do this to us.  |
|||
|
|||
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008 Location: Norwich UK Status: Offline Points: 7053 |
Posted: April 16 2009 at 00:50 |
||
There's a scurrilous rumour doing the rounds in the UK that the smoking ban was only brought in 'cos everyone buys cheap tobacco in Spain and Belgium. If they're not getting enough tax out of it, ban it, etc.
I don't personally believe this to be true, but some cynics I've met actually seem to believe it.
Mind you, would you spend £5 a pack or £12 a pouch when you can get the same for £2 and £3 respectively. Maybe the cynics have a point Edited by el dingo - April 16 2009 at 00:53 |
|||
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru Joined: February 02 2004 Location: South England Status: Offline Points: 14693 |
Posted: April 16 2009 at 06:04 |
||
|
Being a loose tobacco smoker, I find there's usually somewhere you can buy cheap baccy...
|
|||
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
|||
|
|||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: April 16 2009 at 09:06 |
||
|
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/cost.htm
And let's not forget that smoking also causes other forms of cancer ... and a variety of other conditions involving the lungs and coronary system. |
|||
|
|||
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008 Location: Norwich UK Status: Offline Points: 7053 |
Posted: April 16 2009 at 11:29 |
||
Oh no Jim, surely not?
|
|||
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|||
|
|||
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 13629 |
Posted: April 16 2009 at 13:54 |
||
Believe it! In South Wales, some 70% of all the hand rolled tobacco smoked is contraband brought in from cheap places such as Greece, Spain & etc. Brown, of course, made a rod for his own back by taking away virtually every Customs officer from Welsh ports and airports so that it became easy to illegally bring the things in - all to save money, of course. The soon to be created UKBA will turn that around, in recognition of the mistake made by Brown & HMRC. |
|||
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
|||
|
|||
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008 Location: Norwich UK Status: Offline Points: 7053 |
Posted: April 16 2009 at 14:30 |
||
Never thought I'd have this discussion on PA but... Course I believe it!!! I go to Spain a lot and never formally pay for my trip 'cos of it. I know the score - and when you come back into Stansted there's a massive sign saying you can bring in what you like if it's for your own use. I don't profiteer, merely keeping whatever for myself with the occasional exchange at genuine mates' rates.
btw thanks to South Wales for a couple of my fave (non-prog) bands: Man, the Neutrons, and especially the Manics. Plus the Super Furries, but I don't know what part of Wales they're from.
Edited by el dingo - April 16 2009 at 14:32 |
|||
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zargus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 08 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Posted: April 18 2009 at 14:04 |
||
|
Yes i agree with it, if peopel whana destroy thiere one life and die of cancer its up to them, but i dont want thiere stinky smoke on me.
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 5678> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
No Smoking in Bars/Clubs?
Topic Options
Garion81 wrote:
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. 