| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Petrovsk Mizinski 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
 Posted: April 12 2009 at 05:20 |
|
Time to be Mr Negative Pants:
I saw we make it a law you have to smoke 50 cigarettes a day.
That way hopefully we have more chance of the human race dying out for good and then all things to do with smoking will become a non issue.
:P
|
|
|
 |
cobb2
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 25 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 415
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 06:03 |
|
Governments pass laws to ban smoking, but ignore global warming- what a great world we live in (sorry that should read what a great world we are consuming).
Edited by cobb2 - April 12 2009 at 09:54
|
|
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 08:43 |
|
I miss that old pub smell of lager and cigarette smoke, I found it quite comforting. It's a shame about the ban IMHO.
|
|
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 09:17 |
 The Pessimist wrote:
I miss that old pub smell of lager and cigarette smoke, I found it quite comforting. It's a shame about the ban IMHO.
|
Agreed. Glad I got a chance to experience the old bar scene and it's devious charms. Everyday the world loses a bit more of its character. As for smokers "creating their own reality" or whatever PF said below, EVERYone creates their own reality. Everyone sees the world through their own filter--that tendency is not exclusive to smokers.
|
|
MovingPictures07
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Status: Offline
Points: 32181
|
Posted: April 12 2009 at 10:28 |
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 recieves 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? |
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: April 13 2009 at 17:10 |
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. I will admit I've never smoked before and I never plan to start. But I'd prefer that free enterprise and individuals consciously make this decision than governments. And there are so many people who are anti-smoking when it comes to bars and clubs that I wouldn't be surprised if such establishments were established and became more popular than or even put bars and clubs that allow smoking out of business.
|
|
|
|
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Posted: April 13 2009 at 17:11 |
MovingPictures07 wrote:
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 recieves 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
zappaholic
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: flyover country
Status: Offline
Points: 2822
|
Posted: April 13 2009 at 19:44 |
I made this a few years ago, when an indoor smoking ban was on the ballot in Ohio (it passed). It's based on the infamous slogan of christianunderground.com.....
For the record, I don't smoke, I've never smoked, I've never wanted to smoke. But I don't care if anyone else does. Just don't blow it in my face is all I ask.....
|
|
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
|
|
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....
|
|
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.
|
|
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?"
|
|
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.
|
|
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... 
|
|
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?
|
|
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.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
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
|
|
Pekka
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 03 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 6442
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
No Smoking in Bars/Clubs?
