This is the official blog for the two smoking ban groups and all members from either group are welcome here to keep track of statistics and related news.
Get the non-smoking application
Get the smoking application
: : THE GROUPS : :
If you have not yet joined either of the groups and want to participate click the link for the group you want to join below:
Can we find 1 MILLION people that DON'T want smoking back in pubs?
Vs
Can we find 1 MILLION people that DO want smoking back in pubs?
Get the new facebook application here! (Non-Smoker)
Get the new facebook application here! (Smoker)
: : THE EXPERIMENT : :
The main aim of the experiment is simply to find the number of members who don't want smoking back in public areas, and also to find the number of members who do want it back. The 1,000,000 mark is a good number to aim for and it is possible to reach this number of members, but which group will get there first?
: : RESULTS SO FAR : :
So far the non-smoking group (FOR the ban) are in the lead although things could change easily because both groups were created less than a week ago!
145 comments:
Since the smoking ban an awful lot of pubs are empty and/or going out of business. Also, the pubs that are not empty now smell of body odour, which I find more offensive than tobacco smoke. I speak as a non-smoker (and ex-smoker)
I dont know which to join. i hate smokers and passive smoking... however in clubs now, because you have to smoke out doors, the clubs are quieter. Therefore when I go to places with two rooms (e.g. like RedSquare in Adelaide), they hardly ever open the back room (with better music) because if they do the people in the club would thin out even more and it would look empty.... so im glad im not passive smoking anymore but i dont get to go to the back room of my favourite club :(
I am for the no smoking ban for obvious health issues. As for BO you can't blame the smoking ban on that have a wash!
Pubs aint exactly the best place on earth i couldn't care less if they all shut.
I have not joined either group as it is pointless as the number of non smokers far exceeds the number of smokers therfore you have your answer; More people are for the smoking ban than against!
Give the habit up! It's a stupid habit; Breathing in bad gasses and then breathing them out again.......Waste of energy, want a boost buy a can of Redbull or a nicotine patch!
I smoke but I like the fact that everyone goes outside for a communal cigarette now a days. However, yes, now everywhere just smells of sweat in stead - or so almost every single non-smoker I know has said.
Join Us to Save our environment!
We would like to invite you to participate in the environmental exhibition "BECOME THE VOICE OF VOICELESS" which will take place from 14 March to 5 April in NPAK. Mostly photos will be exhibited, but there will be also paintings, sculptures, video art, etc.
The exhibited photos will present the untouched nature as well as polluted and damaged areas.
The exhibition aims at arousing love and care in our society towards the nature and animals, contributing to the development of eco-consciousness and informing people about the crucial environmental problems.
In the frames of the exhibition there will be also eco-seminars, films on environmental topics, rock and classical music concerts, etc.
We are open to cooperation and will be happy to get to know your ideas and suggestions.
Call For Entry
Mail: environmentalexhibition@gmail.com
http://www.bigfamily.am/eco/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=24
As 'offensive' as the smell of body odour may be, it does not cling onto clothes in the way cigarette smoke does. On top of that, it has not yet been shown to cause lung cancer.
Pubs can introduce measures to combat body odour, for example deodorant in toilets or strategically placed automatic deodorant sprays around the pub.
There is no 'right to smoke'. Someone once told me that the ban would infringe upon their 'civil rights'; where does it state that it is permitted to smoke wheresoever we wish? Of all the rights a human might be accorded, how high would the right to inhale toxic smoke and exhale in public areas despite the known and proven risk of disease rate?
I think the smoking ban is great! I'm a non smoker who works in a local pub and I'm now pregnant. I plan on working for as long as I can, had there not been a smoking ban I would have given up work straight away because of the risk to my baby. Yes, body odour is unpleasant, but not as unpleasant as dying in a cancer hospital.
I think there should be opt-out in pubs and clubs. If your landlord and staff want to opt-in to smoking, then they should be allowed to. If they want to keep the no-smoking ban, then that is their choice too!!
xxLadyRoisin
I am not necessarily advocating smoking or even my own right to smoke. I'm advocating freedom for those pub owners who would like to run a business where smoking (which was still a legal substance last time I checked) would be allowed and their employees can certainly choose to go elsewhere if they don't want to work in such an environment. I also think that those who own pubs and *don't* want smoking inside should be allowed to run such an establishment. I'm just sick and tired of the government safety nazis dictating to us what it is we can and cannot do in our businesses, homes, on motorcycles, in cars, etc. I don't think it ought to be *law*. People would then be free to vote with their feet and frequent businesses which aligned with their desires, which promotes a fabulous free market. :)
hey seriously, this remind me of the movie 'American Pie- Beta House' whereas the Beta House competes with the Geek House. lols funny.
All I'd like to say is "Where is our freedom of choice gone". Smoking is legal so why are we made to feel like lepers.
Hotels are private property - so whether smoking is allowed or not should be left to the discretion of the owner of that private property, right?
Or do you liberal-fascists think that you can dictate how people use their private property.
Look at it this way, liberal-fascist, if you think that so many people are opposed to smoking, why didn't you open up non-smoking hotels and make a fortune from the untapped consumer demand? (Because you are a self-righteous ass-hole with a disregard for other people's private property).
does anyone really give a shit? The smoking ban is here and it's being enforced so people who don't want smoking in pubs have got their way and people who do haven't got any choice - end of. Bitching about it or supporting it on facebook isn't going to make any difference either way - millions of people marched into london to protest the iraq war and it didn't change a thing.
I don't understand what this is for.
I love pubs, there's few things better than having a few good pints with some mates in the evening.
What I didn't like about pubs was leaving them at the end of the night stinking like a discarded fag stump.
It wasn't a question of personal choice, of the ten or so pubs within 5 minutes walk of my house none of them were non-smoking.
I don't feel particularly strongly on the matter but this is why I think the smoking ban is a good idea.
I've not seen any evidence it is causing pubs to close, I believe they are closing at roughly the same rate they did before the ban, and I know I'm going to the pub more often than I used to.
As an aside, using the phrase 'liberal fascist' is demonstrative of a profound political illiteracy.
Liberal fascist is a sound phrase, considering how twisted the modern "liberal" has become. 'Classical Liberal' on the other hand has a totally different meaning.
The point about private property being proclaimed as 'public' really gets to the heart of the issue. The UK government and much of society currently holds a sickening collectivist viewpoint where one person's dislike for another person's habit based on a matter of taste or health ends up with a ban or similar illiberal legislation.
It's all For The Greater Good you know.
Such old fashioned ideas such as personal choice, private property, voluntary arrangements and liberty have no place in nuLabour's Britain.
ALCIFER -
Hotels are private property - yes - and in doing all your research you will obviously know that smoking in hotel rooms is allowed and is left to the discretion of the hotel owner. Quoted from a smoking information website:
"Where can I smoke?
You're still allowed to light up outdoors, in the home or places considered to be 'homes', such as prisons, care homes and hotels."
I wish people would get their facts straight before they make a complete ass of themselves!
As a smoker myself, you may wonder why I joined this side of the argument. Well here's the reason: smoking is my choice, its my decision to pollute my body. But it's not my decision for other people to have to put up with secondary smoke that comes from me when I smoke. So I agree that smoking should stay banned from pubs & clubs as its not just smokers that attend these venues... Just my two cents worth...
yeah for the ban! Now I can actually go and play a few games of pool,and return home without a sore throat, or a dire need to shower immediately!
oh, and i'm really getting tired of smoker's whining. It's 2008... we all know smoking is not good for anyone, no matter how much you are in denial.
if you want to suck on a cancer stick, you're right, that's your choice... but if you are smoking around other people, then it's not just about you anymore... you are affecting those around you directly.
and...Why should you be allowed to smoke in your home when children are present??? they can't just choose to leave!
we have laws to punish those who physically injure others in any other way... so why not have laws to protect children, and adults from being physically injured by smoking.
as soon as you start living in a bubble, then you can smoke wherever.
... and I understand all the comments about letting the pubs choose... but it would never work.
amjaaljo I really appreciate your comment! how responsible! if only all smokers were like you!
Just a reminder: the ban isn't about "the smell" it's about our health. 10-15% of lung cancer cases occur in non-smokers, the key prevention of which is limits to one's exposure. This isn't up for debate, this is a fact.
I hear a lot of talk about 'smokers rights'...a ban doesn't take away your right to smoke while NO ban essentially takes away a non-smokers right not to smoke.
The argument 'they could stay home' or 'they could sit in the non-smoking section' is ridiculous; would you really suggest to your non-smoking friends, before a night out, "If you don't like it, stay home. I'll call you tomorrow."? At a restaurant would you really tell your non-smoking friend/friends,"If you don't like it you can sit over there. We'll meet out front in half an hour."? It's not so much to ask someone to go outside - for everyone's health and well being and (fine) the smell - for a few minutes from time to time.
As for "An awful lot of pubs empty and/or going out of business", I'd like to see some statistics. Since when do people go to pubs mainly to smoke? And are there really that many people going "I really don't want to smoke outside. Let's just stay home."? Judging by the crowd of folks milling regularly outside of otherwise crowded establishments (since the ban in Montreal), the only significant difference is the number of non-smokers sitting alone inside waiting for their friends to finish.
As a pub owner I'd worry when people start successfully marketing live music and hiring bar staff for their living rooms. Otherwise I think the portion of the 10-15% who will NOT GET LUNG CANCER thanks to the ban will benefit way more than smokers and/or pub owners will lose.
I rarely drink and plan to quit smoking this year. HOWEVER.There should be a PATIO.
On the opposite side from any NON smoking patio, of course, or hell, even out in the alley facing the dumpsters, who cares? When I go for a beer, it's to shoot the sh*t with my friends, not for the scenery. Why is it the alcoholics can sit on their high horse about the smokers? They're both addictions! Both can kill you! Both are disgusting. But the alchies are accomodated, encouraged!
It might be hard for drinkers to be around smokers, but as a smoker, it's hard for me to be around drinkers!
I say, let there be a patio for smokers. A patio for non smokers. Separated by BRICK. C'mon!
ALso, i meant a patio outside coffee shops too. arg! that's the WORST. coffee and cigs go together for me and I suspect when I quit cigs i'll have to quit all hot drinks also.
I also said that it's hard to be around drinkers. I meant DRUNKS but whatever. IF my friends want to head out for a pitcher I'd like to go too, and most of my drinking friends smoke. A patio would be great. A balcony. SOMETHING.
I'm all for patios. Patios are a super compromise. Winter is the exception, but otherwise I'm all about patios.
I'm an ex-smoker (and I have asthma to all those asthmatics who are going to have a pop at me), my husband's a smoker. I'm sick of having to stand outside in the cold to talk to him if we go out. At least before the ban I had a choice. We recently went out and the crowd of smokers standing by the door was unbelievable. Can you imagine the kick off it would cause if alcohol was banned? I bet all the non-smokers who drink wouldn't be happy then. Just for the record, I don't drink either
;-)
With all due respect, being an asthmatic ex-smoker married to a smoker may lend your opinion a degree of validity, but it doesn't make the want of other non-smoking asthmatics for a safe and healthy environment as less valid. As I pointed out previously, allowing smoking in bars grants choice to smokers while denying it to non-smokers. The other way around (the way it is now) allows for a safe and healthy environment while also allowing smokers to smoke.
Some people on this board seem to need reminding that there is no "Smoking ban". You can still smoke all you want. You're just not allowed to do it where it will make OTHER PEOPLE sick.
Really this is about the right to choose whether or not to infringe on another's right to clean air. As one of those 'others' I'd like to ask you: What about my rights? Will you contribute to my medical expenses I may incur from cancer/emphesema/etc.? Are you willing to pay for the laundry I have to do after a night out (that I wouldn't have to do otherwise)?
Andrea is the second person to compare the smoking ban to a drinking ban though the two don't compare in the slightest. Even if it to was not an outright ban (i.e. people were only allowed to drink outside - though admittedly this is obsurd, but for the sake of comparison...) As much as I loathe to point out the obvious it seems to be called for here: No one dies from second hand alcohol poisoning. No one goes home reeking of beer because their friends got wasted. No one ever gets a second-hand allergic reaction to alcohol.
Honestly.
Smoking & Drinking go "hand & hand" & I have always said "Let Free Enterprise look after it!" If there are enough people who want a bar to go to... where there is NO SMOKING allowed... then someone will open that Bar to make money & become very successful.
Instead what has happened... is that by making it a law... people quit going to bars. Bars close. A few stay open, but most suffer drastically.
I am willing, wanting & able to pay a $10 cover charge to go to some one's home, where I can smoke, drink, meet others, dance, eat... etc & I am sure more of these "illegal operations" will be set up.
When they do... "Thank God"... they will probably allow Pot smoking too & it will definitely be worth the cover charge!
"I have always said 'Let Free Enterprise look after it!'"
Yes, because if there's something that free market capitalism does well it's looking after the ultimate health and well-being of their consumers - not to mention workers and people who are neither but with whom it shares the environment. You can count on orporations to make sure that everyone is looked after.
"What has happened...people quit going to bars. Bars close. A few stay open, but most suffer drastically."
'a few'? 'Most suffer drastically'?
I live in the heart of Montreal, for years before and continuously after the smoking ban came into effect and I don't know of a single bar that closed. I didn't exactly survey my neighbourhood, but none of the handful of bars in which I'm a regular "suffered drastically", if at all. 'Most' and 'Few' aren't adjectives that can be tossed around like confetti without any basis in reality.
As printed in the Montreal Mirror in April 2006...
"Most bar owners contacted by the Mirror for this article don’t seem too worried about the economic effect the ban will have on their business. Based on previous bans, most owners can expect a 15 to 20 per cent dip in business in the first few months following a ban, but it usually turns itself around....business might even pick up as non-smokers won’t have problems with going out to clubs."
Can you give a single example of a bar that closed as a direct cause of a smoking ban? A bar that wouldn't have closed anyway? A ban of the sort in Montreal, in which all bars and restaurants were uniformly no longer allowed to permit smoking?
im from mexico and recently the governmet agree to stop smoking in clubs, pubs, restaurants and also theyre looking to stop smoking in my car!!!!!!!
Well... I for one do not go out to the bar anymore & spend money there, simply because I cannot smoke there.
So there is ONE person who is not spending piles of money in those establishments any more. I doubt I am not the only one.
Now if you want examples of bars that have closed after the smoking ban came in... they are everywhere. Toronto, Mississauga, Calgary, Vancouver... you can take your pick.
People who do not smoke generally are more health conscious as a whole. They are also apt not to drink as much as well.
There HAS been a serious dent in the bar industry because of this & if you think not... you simply have "blinders on".
Now we are not talking about a Unionized workplace. We are talking about where "free people" go to mingle & relax... & spend their "hard earned dollars".
Now, as a smoker... if I am going to be comfortable & relax, I wish to also have the opportunity to smoke. If I cannot do that legally then you have "stifled my freedom"!
I am not against having bars that are totally "NON SMOKING" where people like you can go & feel comfortable.
However what you seem to be saying is that you will not allow me "A Smoker" to have the same opportunity! You want to regulate how I am to enjoy myself as an Adult, doing something that is legal to do, in an environment where other "like people" (the same as I am) wish to gather.
I personally do not want to go places with, hang around with, be best buddies with non smokers. Simply because they impede my comfort.
So by passing laws that prevent "smokers" from getting together in a public place... your really being unfair "in my mind" to a very large segment of the population that desires to have the right to live comfortably.
Now that you have won this battle... what's next? Garlic eating in public? Perfume?
Oops I spoke too soon as there are now offices that have banned the wearing of perfume.
Can't smoke in my car? Soon you will be in my bathroom & bedroom!
Firstly I'm a non-smoker, hardly drink and have asthma.
Personally I love the smoking ban (here in the UK) because
1.I can go out for the evening go straight to bed when I get home, at about 4am, and not wake up wishing I wasn't in bed with myself because I stink of smoke.
2. I hardly use my Asthma Inhaler when I go out for a night.
3. I get to chat to my friends more as I will go outside and sit with them while they smoke since the clubs I go to are often to loud to talk. I've also made a few new friends as a result.
However, I think there is one compromise that could be made which is that if a club/pub has more than one room the second room can be made a smoking room at the discretion of the owners/managers. With regards to staff the second room could be staffed with smokers and keep the old rule of no smoking at the bar. Also private clubs should be allowed to opt out of the smoking ban if their members wish.
teflonjim2006.... love your examples of bars that have closed... I was not aware that they were so many establishments with same names as cities!
we all know smoking would be illegal if it didn't rake in so many tax $$$$
it's just not good for anyone... hello!
What is so bad about a country strongly encouraging good health... and yes... not smoking anymore!
so take a hint and quit already. oh wait you probably can't... cuz you're addicted... sounds like freedom to me!
Look... I could give you "named examples" of bars that went out of business since the smoking ban was put in effect... but then you would just argue that the ban was not the reason for their closing.
Simply speaking...
If people have the freedom to smoke in an establishment... there obviously is more chance they will visit it & spend money there. Period!
I would go "one further" than that.
If you split a bar 50/50 smoking & non & had a waitress for each side... there would be an argument between the two as to who would have the opportunity of working the smoking side & earn "vastly more" in tips!
I have been in quite a few bars in which they did split the bar in the past. The smoking side had a waiting list & the non smoking was virtually empty!
So like I said... if it is so popular ... you would not need a ban.
The only reason why there has to be a ban is that it is NOT POPULAR & it makes no sense for business.
It also restricts smokers to staying at home, being uncomfortable if they go to a bar... standing outside... hacking their brains out in -20 temperatures (as smoking & cold air do not go well together), while the "non smokers" have won & made "smokers" now "second class citizens".
I know it is not about to change either. No matter how much sense my argument makes.
Bars will not be getting my business in the future & there are many people like me that will not be spending their hard earned cash there.
Just as I no longer go to Movie Theaters since they banned smoking there. I am not going to sit for 2-3 hours "enjoying a movie" & dieing for a smoke!
Now you can say the reason why those establishments are almost a dead breed is not because of their smoking ban... all you want. Yet the fact is... few people go anymore.
There are a lot of factors involved in why a place is popular or not. It may be the crowd. It may be the price of booze. It may be the food. It may be the location. It may be the economy. It can also be because of a smoking ban, but as far as this battle goes... "your side" (the squeaky wheel) wins as smokers in general... will not stand up for themselves! They know it is a "bad habit" & they will just sit at home instead & not complain.
The fact is... that for Bars... it is another factor of the "nail in their coffin" & I will be glad when more "speakeasy's" (illegal establishments) open up that will allow "under the table" smoking, while charging a cover charge, that I for one will gladly pay!
wow... you can't even go a few hours without a smoke?
I don't think it's the ban that's restricting your freedom.
you can't even sit through a movie at a theater because your addiction is controlling you.
who is really in charge here?
Yep;
Big Announcement for ya!
Most people who smoke do so on an hourly basis, at least when they are being comfortable.
More often when they drink.
I get the impression from teflonjim that he'd wear his lung cancer, should he be lucky enough to get it, like a badge of honour. Then he'd log onto a board like this one and write a post that starts with "I think smoking should be ushered back into bars and restaurants tout suite. I have lung cancer now and have never been happier..."
You know some people eat too much. Some drink too much. Some do drugs. Some own cars & are busy polluting "all of our World" when they could just as easily be taking transit & meanwhile staring down their nose at others.
The fact is that smoking is legal. Now if it wasn't for the "squeaky wheels"... people would be able to smoke anywhere as they use to when I grew up & began smoking.
Yet it is not the morality of smoking that is the issue here. What is an issue is "personal freedom" to do legal things.
Now smoking is banned almost everywhere & all that does to the smoker is to make him withdraw from society in that venue.
As I said... it has helped shut down the Movie Theaters & the restaurants & now the bars. Yet it is a fact, that if bars were given the choice of a smoking section... it would be filled much faster & easier than the non smoking side.
That bugs you doesn't it? That since you cannot stop people from being free to live in their own way ... you will force it on them no matter if it is "cutting your nose off to spite your face" as that is exactly what it is.
Not only are businesses loosing the money generated from these people you have successfully stepped on... but the "nicest person in your life that you could have ever met"... you will not meet now, as he or she will not frequent those venues anymore.
Yes you could say "It's Party Time! Let's go to a Church!" & it would make just as much sense as a smoking ban in bars.
I hope you will find happiness dealing with only "non smokers"... as you will not be dealing with many of us "smokers" anymore... no matter how cool we are!
If "nicest person" I "could have ever met" doesn't care about my health and well-being...well, maybe it's best that we have parted before we've met ;)
As Loco pointed out, a partial ban would never work. All the smokers would flock to the bars where they can smoke and then, yes, bars (the healthy ones) would start going out of business. A full ban is necessary to be fair to the bars while also protecting the health of non-smokers.
Maybe you, teflonjim, ONLY hang out with other smokers. But that is not the norm. (Indeed, it's a bit ridiculous that you 'would never be best friends' with a non-smoker because you would be 'uncomfortable'. It makes me wonder what other criteria you discriminate against. Does vegetarianism bother you? How about people who smoke but who still go out to drink?)
Most people have friends who smoke and friends who don't. We are not as neatly segregated as people against the smoking ban seem to think (and so upon which base their ideal alternatives i.e. partial bans). As you keep chosing to ignore (rather than respond to since it's an incontestable truth that there is really no getting around), non-smokers in a smoking environment suffer. They can't escape from it. They could if they and everyone they know are non-smokers. They could sit in the non-smoking section (which is what they used to do). But what, teflonjim, would you suggest a non-smoker with a group of smokers do when someone says "Hey, let's all go for a drink!". A smoker can go outside every 15 minutes or so and smoke. If going out every 15 minutes for fresh air would mitigate the risk of lung damage to a non-smoker then I suppose you could reasonably ask them to do so (the inescapable smell of smoke they go home with notwithstanding). But, unfortunately, breathe in cigarette smoke and what's done is done. You can't simply breathe the damage back out again.
This is, as you've correctly noted, about freedom...like other laws we have (against assault, theft, etc.) laws restricting freedom 'to' are necessary for more important freedoms 'from'. My right to good health (my freedom to choose health over ill-health - like your freedom to choose ill-health over health) and clean air is more important than your right to smoke while you drink.
Period.
amen to jodie's responses!
Well Jodie;
You have your point & obviously you see mine, as you agree that the "general population" of people who did frequent bars would migrate to the smoking ones if they had the option.
So your solution is the same as putting up a sign like "no Jews allowed" & feeling that being in the same company with people who smoke is going to hurt you, as that might be the case in some way.
However... let me tell you something. YOU may be very sensitive of a "smoke filled room" & although I have smoked for over 40 Years... I, along with a bunch of other people do not have that problem.
When I could smoke in bars... I met & hung out with a bunch of non smokers that I enjoyed spending time with YES!
However, they obviously were not so fanatical about the smoke, as it was worth it to them to associate with the smokers.
My Mom & Dad never smoked... but they often socialized with people who did, as they found smoke annoying... but not annoying enough to drop their social patterns.
Now in the case of smokers... we really have NO CHOICE! We are "YES" addicted. We are not going to feel comfortable in your company unless we have the ability to smoke.
During the Summer months... I will go to a bar & smoke outside (where you still can... as even that option is being taken away), or choose to spend my entire time on the patio, where I can feel comfortable.
However what you are saying is...
"I have an issue and am sensitive to smoke & so I want everyone to stop smoking around me because I am better than you are"!
For the most part... you have won. Yet... what have you won? You won the right to hang around with a bunch of "non smokers"... especially during the winter months.
Now you could choose to hang around with nothing but Catholics by going to a Catholic Church. You could choose to hang around with nothing but "Bikers" by going to a biker bar. You could choose to hang around with gay people by going to a "gay bar".
However... you don't want others to have that choice... do you when it comes to smoking?
Nope they all have to not smoke... everywhere! Since a non smoking Bar would not be popular enough to survive on its own... you want to force ALL the bars to be non smoking.
But... Jodie... what is the point in a bar? Why did or do people go there?
Would you agree to let loose? Hang out? Get comfortable with others? Well if you say I can't smoke... I won't be comfortable & so I won't attend.
Yet in the meantime, I would probably lay odds that you drive a car with an "internal combustion engine".
Now what is more unhealthy to you? A room filled with cigarette smoke or car exhaust? But YOU probably think it is ok to pollute MY world & destroy OUR planet... or at least do your part by driving around.
Now... I as a smoker would accept a non smoking friend normally... even if I would not be visiting his or her home if I could not smoke in it.
Yet that is not going to be an issue anymore for me, as I will not probably meet those non smoking people in a "social environment" anymore, as I will not be going to those venues that prevent me from smoking often enough to get to meet them.
I will have my own friends over to my home & visit theirs "if I can smoke there"... & I will not have the opportunity to meet those people unless I decide to quit smoking.
Since (as it has been analyzed) that smoking is as hard an addiction to quit as heroin, I would say that most of us who still do smoke will continue.
I live out West now but was born in Ontario. One thing I hated about Ontario was the cliques that people joined up into... banning other people from entering their circle of friends, as I found that very pomp ass.
Your blatant smoking ban for ALL Bars simply puts you into one of those cliques of which I want no part of.
'Sensitive' to smoke? Smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers. C-A-N-C-E-R. You seem to be unfamiliar with it. Maybe you should look it up.
P.S. I hang out with lots of smokers; especially since now it's possible to do so without choosing between them and my health.
P.P.S. I do not drive a car with an internal combustion engine. I choose, in fact, not to drive at all.
Well good for you Jodie on the "car bit"! Your probably one of those people who I would like to meet, as you are not the "pot calling the kettle black" as most are.
However that won't happen unfortunately... because of the Smoking Ban you support.
Now as far as this "Cancer Thing" goes... like I said, I have been smoking for over 40 years. If I am not dead yet, I simply wonder how close you are to death from "second hand smoke"... & find it a little fanatical.
However... YOU seem to find that as a worry. For that reason, I would advise you not to frequent Bars at all... if they were "Smoking Bars", realizing that you are a Minority.
Most people who have been friends of mine, Smokers & Non Smokers can handle it.
Just think. You could have never been a personal friend of Johnny Carson. Yes he died of Cancer. So do non smokers. So do people who work in mines. So do people who live in Cities. We all have choices as to where we want to live & where we socialize... that is...
UNTIL NOW!
You know that smokers are allowed in bars, right? They also still go to bars. In abundance. If you never go anymore then how do you know? Please refer back to the post in which I quoted the report on smoking bans i.e. the consequences bar owners can expect as the result of a smoking ban.
The bars don't close and the people don't stop going. YOU are in the minority. In fact, the group of people (lumped together) who don't smoke, or who do/have and have quit/are trying to quit rivals those who smoke and intend to continue doing so.
It is not the same world - for smokers anyway - that it was 20, 10, even 5 years ago. You've been smoking for 40 years and are referencing a world that no longer exists.
Every year more than 1000 Canadians die from exposure to second hand smoke. And that's just the cancer.
That's a substantial risk.
Go here for more information: http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/
standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId
-en,00.html
(In fact, anyone interested in what second-hand smoke does to people should go there. The link will bring you to the site for the Canadian Cancer Society)
My concern is not fanatical. You're refusal to see the consequences of your actions to the people around you - the people whom you'd ask to risk their health, and ultimately their lives, for your personal comfort - is.
Maybe the non-smokers you used to have in your life are as well shot of you as you are of them. And they are probably better for it (You wouldn't go to their houses if you couldn't smoke in it? Who would want such a selfish and inconsiderate person to come over anyway?)
I'm sorry, the link I posted can't simple be cut and paste. Cut and paste this instead:
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html
It's not "selfish & inconsiderate" Jodie. What is "selfish & inconsiderate" is a "Total Ban".
Now before these laws came into affect... many Bars opened up "Ventilated Smoking Rooms" that were "entirely separate" inside of their establishments.
Those rooms were very crowded indeed! Yet the non smoker could stay on the other side of the Bar that was "Non Smoking" & they would not have to run the risk of breathing ANY second hand smoke.
Yet those "Smoking Rooms" that cost the bar owners a pile of money to install are now "obsolete"!
Why? Simply because the "Non Smokers" would feel jealous of everyone having so much fun on the "Smoking Side" that they demanded the Smoking Bylaw go further by banning it for EVERYONE!
Now... you may be correct "in many parts of this Country" where Smokers still do frequent these establishments, or a large segment of them.
I live in Sask. When it is -30 on a Saturday Night... my idea NO LONGER is to go out to the bar! I would not hesitate to say that MOST smokers in Sask feel the same way!
Smoking outside (not really being a good option in -30 Weather) really helps me make the decision to stay at home or visit a friend who also smokes.
Yes I have heard the stats. If you take your "main stay bars" they will loose 15-30% of their business at first & it will return... but not because of what you are hinting at. The reason is that the Bars who were having a tough time making ends meet before... CLOSE!
Then with less bars... people migrate to the ones still open... but you ARE loosing a definite segment of the "Smoking Population" who simply do not go anymore.
I swear to you Johnny Carson would not be going! Neither will I.
You can "sugar coat it" any way you choose... but the fact is that you are taking MY freedom away!
Now when you take away MY freedom... you "shoot yourself in the foot" as well. Even if it was only ONE person (which is really ridiculous to think) that would not frequent that Bar anymore... that is a loss.
Yet it is SO much more than that! There still is a very large segment of the population that smoke & you are not allowing them to socialize in public while exercising their "legal addiction" & giving the opportunity to gather in a public place with people who share their interest. In other words, you turn decent upstanding people who are doing only legal things into "social lepers" & I for one see the real ever person as the "Militant Non Smoker".
Sorry I meant to say the real "leper person" as the Militant Non Smoker
Well, I'm a smoker, which is obvious, but I didn't join this group because of this. My point of view is: why smoking is not forbidden by law? On one side you are producing and selling and getting money from taxes etc., and on the other side you are repressing people with all those prohibitions. It seems like thing with alcohol in Chicago during prohibition. Poor smokers all around the Europe and USA are feeling like Jewish people in Germany back in Hitler's time - just need some yellow ribbon.
teflonjim: Have you even read my posts?
And are you seriously comparing the plight of smokers today to that of Jews in Nazi Germany? I mean, seriously? After giving it some thought and considering the details? Because as far as I'm concerned the two aren't so much apples and oranges and more like apples and a two week old rare steak riddled with e-coli.
Until they start rounding up smokers in vans and carting them off the death camps (rather than the ones in which they already reside), I will consider the comparison (made waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many times) ludicrous. To the far far extreme.
Maja: They didn't make the jews wear "ribbons", they were wearing the star of David, a Judaic symbol. It was the Holocaust for God's sake, not the Oscars.
This is gotten ridiculous. Goodnight guys, I'm done.
This is
Well I did not make that comparison ... Maja did. I understand why. Yet you seem to be more interested Jodie in finding fault in an example without dealing with the issue.
Maja makes a very good point. It's like saying "It's legal to own & drive a car... but you are not allowed to drive it in any town. Just on the highways.
Although your point about the deaths that are caused by the pollution derived because of the internal combustion engine, it would make 'more sense' to ban the engine.
Either make it "illegal" or allow places for people to openly enjoy their legal habit. Again it IS an addiction & it IS not something that most people "addicted" can not consider when deciding where they go to spend their free time.
My only reference to Jews was in the way you have made smokers "social lepers" as the Jews were made at a time in history, simply because of their religion.
You might say that is comparing "apples to stones" but that is not really the case. Back when the Jews were "social outcasts" there were many excuses as to why associating with Jews would be bad for you & harmful to your health... just as powerfully believed as your "second hand smoke" causing you Cancer is to you.
If that "really was the big issue you make it out to be"... you certainly would not need a smoking ban at all, as people would run screaming out of any establishment in which someone "lit up" & Jodie... that is NOT the case!
The case is simply...
You have a segment of the population that enjoys a certain lifestyle but in some ways that is different from yours. Yet it is not good enough for you to say "live & let live" as I can choose where I spend MY free time & it just might NOT be a smoke filled bar!
Yet that is not good enough for you is it? NO! You have to make sure that EVERYONE enjoys themselves in the exact SAME WAY that you do! Period!
That makes you selfish, self centered, pomp ass, & fanatical.
Now some smokers will do exactly as you say & continue to go to the bars & go outside for a smoke (at least until they ban smoking on the street... which they will & have in other cities already), & some smokers will quit smoking.
Yet a large segment of those smokers will either stop going to such venues... or create & frequent "illegal establishments" just as people had to do during prohibition.
I might also point out Jodie... that my comparison to Prohibition is not far off the mark.
Drinking is bad for you! It causes way more problems than simply Cancer! From assaults to crimes of all varying types, to health issues of all kinds... you will find it's root issue being that of "legal alcohol consumption".
What happens when you ban drinking? The exact same thing that will happen because you banned smoking.
Yet in the case of Prohibition, it was a "total ban" everywhere, including your own home.
Smoking bans have not gotten that big yet, but I can see the obvious movement there.
After you got it banned in Theaters & Bars... next will be on the street... already implemented in peoples personal vehicles in some places... next will be your own home.
It simply is taking people's freedom away to enjoy something that is legal to purchase... & done in a way that is "totally unfair" to that segment of the population, as you will NOT allow certain Bars the licence to cater to the smokers.
The danger posed by Jews was illusory. A story made up by the Nazis, who were insane. The danger posed by smokers to non-smokers is not a story made up by fascists intent upon cleansing the world of "undesirables", thus please let the comparison lie here. Second hand smoke actually does kill people (1000 Canadians a year) and your analogy, if taken any further, would a) embarrass yourself and b) offend the memory of Jewish people - and other victims of genocide - by suggesting that the inconvenience you "suffer" comes anywhere close to what they suffered.
Please follow this link before saying ANYTHING further and respond to it:
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,31
But please please please DO NOT compare this information to Nazi propaganda. This is the website for the Canadian Cancer Society.
I feel like I'm playing a virtual game of asshole (the schoolyard version involving a tennis ball and a brick wall, not the drinking game).
I'm sorry, I did it again. This link works. I've just tested it.
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html
Okay, the problem with posting links, if you try to cut and paste them directly from the URL address bar, is that they extend beyond the frame of the comment window and thus do not appear complete when posted. So; cut and paste it in segments or just type it out. Here are the segments. Cut and paste them in order, put them in the URL box, and it'll work.
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet
/standard/0,3182,31
72_13127__langId-en,00.html
Jodie;
You can go "on & on & on & on some more" (as you obviously want to) as to how Smoking, & or Second Hand Smoke causes Cancer.
I doubt there are many Smokers that will dis agree with you on that FACT!
No Link needed!
Just as drinking & the consumption of booze causes a vast amount of health problems... both mental & physical.
Just as "car exhaust" is polluting our atmosphere... or how some people are allergic to perfume.
Yet this is NOT the point!
The POINT is... that YOU feel it is ok to deny Smokers a public place to socialize & I say that doing that is pomp ass, inconsiderate & a direct attack on my PERSONAL freedom.
If the argument was about smoking causing Cancer & tobacco should be banned... you might have an issue which I also would not agree with... but that is NOT the issue.
You are not trying to ban tobacco. You are not trying to make it illegal for what "you would call" good reasons.
What you ARE supporting is limiting the venues to ZERO for people who legally smoke a legal substance today!
i can't even believe i'm responding to this ridiculousness again.... but the "issue" IS the health risks.... they didn't ban smoking in public places because they hate smokers... lol
i love a lot of people who currently smoke... but it doesn't mean I enjoy their habit, or addiction.
let's let people drink and drive. after all drinking is legal... and so is driving!isn't it their right???
it all boils down to.... do you have the right to harm someone else... perhaps kill them... immediately... or eventually?
the answer should be no.
should you have the right to hurt yourself? sure... as long as it doesn't affect others.
i think you will find though... in the end ... no man is an island... we live in a world with others in it. we need to learn to be considerate of others. if our behavior is negatively affecting those around us... we should have enough common sense to stop. whether it's gossiping, polluting, etc.
unfortunately some people don't care about anyone but themselves... and so our government has to issue laws to protect our wellbeing.
our government is far from perfect... but it could be a lot worse.
i happen to feel that things would have been a lot easier if smoking was just illegal since it began... unfortunately... we didn't realize the risks at first... so now we're left to back-peddle.
now we're stuck with...... people who were allowed by our government to become addicted to a legal substance... who are now told... shame on you for becoming addicted and for putting at risk other's health.
it's a tough situation.... hopefully we can all have patience and understanding of all feelings on both sides pertaining to this subject.
Amen to LoCo :)
Ok Loco
It is a health issue TO YOU.
So would you have a problem reading a sign that said...
"These Premises allow Cigarette smoking"?
That is all I think would be fair.
Allow certain places to apply for a business licence for an establishment that caters to Smokers. That's all.
The people who are concerned about second hand smoke can NOT GO THERE.
Now isn't that fair?
While the sign that you've suggested would work perfectly in theory it doesn't in practice. That was the status quo until a few years ago and while non-smokers in groups were fine, it left individuals with totally unfair choices. The problem - as I keep pointing out and that you keep choosing to ignore - is that smokers and non-smokers socialize together. A group might have 5 smokers and 2 non-smokers. Or 3 non-smokers and 1 smoker. Where the smokers are outnumbered they all end up in the non-smoking section - or in a non-smoking establishment - and the smoker has to make do with occasional trips outside. The cost to him/her: inconvenience. But when non-smokers are outnumbered they all end up in the smoking section, or in a smoking establishment and the non-smoker has to simply grin and bear it.
If it was just about smell, or 'whose the better person' as per public opinion, then the concern would indeed be superficial and perhaps both concerns would be equally valid. Except; the consequence to non-smokers for this arrangement: 1000 dead in Canada every year.
For me that's enough to tip the scales. But there's more; here's a quote from the website maintained by the Canadian Cancer Society:
"Second-hand smoke causes sore eyes and throat, nasal irritation, headaches, coughing and wheezing, nausea and dizziness. [Exposed] and you are more likely to get colds and the flu. Breathing in second-hand smoke can also trigger asthma attacks and increase your chances of getting bronchitis and pneumonia."
I won't even bother bringing up the smell.
While smoking is in rapid decline, those who often go to bars and restaurants are still largely smokers. As long as this is true and all-out ban is necessary. Why? Because smokers - like you - don't generally worry about their non-smoking friends provided those friends grin and keep quiet. As a non-smoker whose usually surrounded by smokers, I have never been granted the consideration by you guys that you're asking be granted by us.
This lack of consideration - borne out again and again - can lead to illness or death. Thus it must be legislated.
I agree 100% with LoCo regarding social push and pull on people to smoke/not smoke/smoke/not smoke. I think everyone - smokers especially - should be right pissed. But not at non-smokers for standing up for their right to be healthy. At tobacco companies for courting and supplying for addiction in the first place.
One of my favorite movies is 'The Insider', about a former tobacco scientist at Philip Morris who lost his job, family, etc. for breaking a confidentiality agreement to give an interview to 60 minutes, essentially telling the world what only tobacco insiders knew: that cigarettes are highly addictive (common knowledge now) and that they kill people.
You might even remember when that happened, teflonjim. I wish I was around, or old enough (I'm not sure when exactly it actually happened...) to have seen the actual interview.
Integrity like that is far too hard to come by.
Well Jodie;
Obviously you ended up getting what you seemed to be fighting against in the first place.
You have excluded a majority of the smokers from wishing to frequent bars anymore.
In my mind, the fair thing to do, would be to allow a "certain percentage" of the bars NOW to allow smoking in their ventilated rooms that they must build in order to allow the bar to cater to smokers.
In that way... both smokers & non smokers would be treated equally.
However that IS NOT about to happen is it? No matter what I say or do... the fact is that I will simply have to take "going to the bar" out of my normal schedule, simply because it places limits on me that I do not want. Just as I no longer go to theaters, nor do I stay very long in an eating establishment anymore, as staying would make me uncomfortable.
Now you may say that there is a "drastic decline" in the amount of smokers out there, & certainly it might seem that way as you see them less & less as time goes on, because they are no longer welcome in public.
Yet believe me, as hard as it is for someone to quit smoking, I doubt it all has made that much of a dent, except that they are no longer visible to YOU.
I personally think we should have been moving in the "opposite direction", legalizing marijuana & allowing that too being sold & smoked in the bars. Yet instead society opted for curtailing freedom. That is a shame.
I am sure there will be a time when everyone will walk a certain way & talk a certain way, dress the same way & think the same way... but I am quite happy being different & I do believe more tolerant of others habits.
teflonjim2006
i hear what you are saying about the sign... and in theory it would work to have some establishments smoking... and some non.... but there would be no way to ensure that there are both smoking and non smoking establishments. it's a regulation issue.
i also think a patio is great (for summer obviously)
it would be way better than having a crowd of smokers to walk through to get to the front door.
Yes well some regulations are so ludicrous...
In Calgary you CANNOT smoke on the Patio... but you can inside the bar, & you can walk by the patio on the street smoking.
Yet we know that all will change. I understand in Edmonton you can no longer smoke on the Street.
You can't in some parts of California either. As I said... it's the "squeaky wheel that gets the grease" & smokers don't generally stand up for themselves.
Today I walk into bars that used to be packed, & you can shoot a cannon through them at most times of the day.
A lot of it can be taken as change in technology. DVD players & 500 channels really make the theaters obsolete. Going to a Bar & seeing a good band has in many ways become a thing of the past. As not only do many of the possible patrons smoke, & so they don't attend, but also many of the Musicians do as well & find it hard.
Socially... society seems to be becoming more & more segregated & operating in much smaller groups.
That is a great shame. The smoking ban definitely contributes to it.
I honestly believe that smoking & drinking go "hand & hand" with many people. I have even known those who don't regularly smoke at all... unless they are drinking.
Probably the first time I saw it getting silly was when I first saw smoking banned in "Strip Bars".
I could understand a bar where children could be exposed... but a "strip bar"? I had no idea how far these "anti smokers" were willing to go with this.
Now they claim that "nobody can smoke anywhere" & as a person addicted to the weed, I an just glad that my "young years" are over & I am no longer going out to bars, meeting girls, dancing & buying them drinks as I used to... as at this time in my life, I guess I can stand being the "social reject" that the non smokers have made me. I do feel sorry for the younger generation though, as going to the bar to socialize will never probably be again, what it was in the past.
The smoking ban was it's death nell in my mind. At least for the "second class citizens like me" ... the smokers, who will not be allowed "our own place" to publicly hang out anymore.
Giving the choice of allowing smokers back to the bar tenders. Not all of them will convert.
It's an investment to ensure better air circulation, ashtrays, more staff to clean, more maintenance to allow cleaning.
Not all will switch because of these investments and even if they do then the people will have spoken. This is not something you can ask individuals about.
Even my friend stated that I don't mind the smoking in bars but the reason I joined the "against the smoking ban" channel is for all the people that can't speak for themselves. Talk about a crappy excuse.
Let's do one better and let bartenders set there own price on alcohol. Lets stop the government from running our lives for us.
By the way I am a non-smoker, a never-smoker and a never-gonna-be smoker.
I would just like to refute a few points made here:
1. I feel that alcohol is at least as dangerous as tobacco. I believe approx. 45% of total A&E admissions are alcohol-related, which increases to upwards of 75% on Friday and Saturday nights. Some of these are for people who've injured themselves, sure, but many are for people injured by people who have been drinking.
2. You may not like being around smokers, I don't like being around drunk people. I hardly ever drink myself. I do, however, like spending time with my friends, so I put up with it. I hate the way many drunken people behave - I have been pushed into, groped, attacked... In addition,I hate the smell of beer; I hate when someone who's been drinking breathes on me, it stinks. Which brings me to another point...
3. Even since the smoking ban I have never managed to go out for the night to a pub/club and not stink when I get home. People spill beer - it spills on you and the table. Clubs get hot, so people (including me) get sweaty, it doesn't matter what deoderant they put on. You walk through clouds of smoke at pub entrances, taxi stands and bus stops anyway.
4. Smoking is not the sole cause of lung cancer. Some people here need to understand this. Some people just get lung cancer because they get it. Same as bowel cancer, ovarian cancer, etc. Although I can see that people always like to have something to blame, as it is awful. I seem to remember that if you look at the true unmanipulated figures, passive smoking increases your risk of lung cancer by approx. a 0.6%, i.e from 4.0% to 4.6%. Statistically, this is negligible. And that study was done on people who lived with heavy smokers.
5. Going out with a mixed group is now less sociable, not more. The smokers go outside for long periods of time to have a smoke and talk, while the non-smokers stay inside and talk.
I'm sure people will tell me I'm awful for not believing the spun statistics, but so what? These are just my opinions and experiences, based on what I have read as fact and experienced.
That's my two cents (well, 20 really, looking at it all! ).
Well you know Kate... you only make sense. I could just imagine people talking about going swimming & people complaining about "peeing in the pool".
So they go to pass a law to stop "peeing in the pool" & the arguments are very sane indeed!
Pee can pass on AIDS, Hepatitis, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, along with a host of other deadly diseases! Why should I not be able to go to the pool & not be subjected to such hazards?
Some smart person somewhere says...
"Look... if your that concerned about your health... DON'T GO TO THE POOL!"
We are not going to place a bunch of laws on the books so that everywhere you go & everything you do is "risk free"!
If you want to go to the pool, or you want to go to a bar, there are certain hazards you must accept!
Yet in this case, it is (as icanrule hinted at) not even THAT which smokers would like to see. All WE want is the opportunity to be able to drink & smoke in "some establishment" somewhere... anywhere that at least is public enough that other people have "the choice" to join us or not!
That seems to be too much for these non smoking radicals to accept!
Therefore, not only are our freedoms curtailed, but they are taken down, stepped on & crushed into the mud... all for the sake of these crusaders who really are just biting off their noses to spite their faces.
Now they have gotten their way & there are less options for all as a result, along with a giant loss of freedom for the smoker.
I might point out, as I hinted at before... that some places in this Country get so cold in the winter, that stepping outside for a smoke is not really an option, even though "that option" has a mark already on it for a future ban.
Couldn't agree more with everything teflonjim has been saying.
The EU Law is that workers should not be exposed to passive smoke, harmful environment, etc. There are many ways to ensure this, just look at the amsterdam lot who will be fixing glass screens between the bar and the smokers. Germany where "smoking rooms" will be designated and no worker can go in. Its just rubbish that the UK has gone for this wholesale tactic. Oh but wait we always used to have no-smoking rooms in pubs so what was the problem? What's the difference between that and Germany's plans? Hah its because we all know the non-smokers would sit with their smoking mates. So no can't do that, nothing would really change so they, the UK Government, will tell us what to do and how to think. No vote, no democracy, nothing!
Equality before the law - that is a Human Right. Smokers are increasingly ostricised as a sub-culture that should be reviled and yet is still legal to purchase. Hipocrisy at its finest. Sorry UK Government but if smoking offends you so much outlaw it whole hog or allow me to do as I please and allow the non-smokers who stress about passive smoking stand outside or in their "NO SMOKING ROOMS".
I have no problem with the principle but the execution has been disgusting. All or nothing boys thats the key. Whats more important to you Government? Revenue from Tobacco companies or healthier voters?
"Or 3 non-smokers and 1 smoker. Where the smokers are outnumbered they all end up in the non-smoking section - or in a non-smoking establishment - and the smoker has to make do with occasional trips outside. The cost to him/her: inconvenience. But when non-smokers are outnumbered they all end up in the smoking section, or in a smoking establishment and the non-smoker has to simply grin and bear it."
Bullcrap - Why can't the non-smokers make occasional trips outside when the smokers light up hey? What's so unfair about that when compared to the opposite example you gave? I as a smoker want to socialise with you in a nonsmokers pub, so I have 2 options 1) not smoke all evening or 2) pop outside when i want one. You as a non-smoker want to socialise with me in a smokers pub, so you have two options 1) Grin and bear it or 2) pop outside when I want one.
What you're saying is non-smokers should never be inconvenienced but its okay for smokers, and if that's the case that laziness > healthiness for a nonsmoker then you all deserve to die without the plesure of knowing how satisfying a cigarette with your beer is.
which is what you have taken from me!
Much like teflonjim I do not visit the pub regularly anymore. When work sends me to Germany and I can sit in the warm and drink my beer and have a cigarette I rememeber what a civilised country of real freedom once looked like. Shame its not my country is all
Non-smoking pubs and bars are GREAT! I can go and have lunch in a pub and actually taste the food. I leave without smelling like smoke the rest of the day.
I can go and hear a band play and actually enjoy it.
I can go out dancing and not smell like an ashtray later.
None of the pubs/bars/nightclubs I go to are affected by lack of attendance. There's just as many people crowded in as there always was.
As far as I'm concerned this ban should have been done years ago
Isn't that great for YOU abaxter !
Too bad I am not allowed your "special privileges". Oh... but then being a "second class citizen" I am guessing you would think it would be asking too much for me to ask for a similar establishment to be available for smokers, while you continue to have such a good time. Now wouldn't it?
kate361 after reading your post i just had to point out some of the inaccuracy's in the statistics you posted. You are right, smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, in the UK there are basically three causes, smoking, asbestos and radon gas. More than 85% of the cases of lung cancer can be attributed directly to smoking however. This I don't mind, people know the risks these days so if they want to smoke that is fine with me.
Passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer (amongst many other diseases). This is barely even disputed in the medical community anymore (and almost everything is). Your "statistically negligible" people amount to 11,000 a year in the UK alone (BMJ 2005;330:812 (9 April)) so your dismissal of these people as irrelevant I find somewhat distressing.
I do like the way you parallel smoking with alcohol, because it supports the ban very nicely. You see all these things that cause A&E admissions (of someone other than the drinker) are, strangely enough, illegal. In both of these examples the government is trying to prevent the harm done to others through these habits, while at the same time leaving the liberty to smoke, or drink there.
Now teflonjim2006 the central tenet of your argument seems to be by banning smoking in public places, we are taking away your right to go for a night out, and I guess in a way we are, thought only if we assume you do not have the will power to go without for a night. However if we reverse the situation and have the ban lifted we get into the same situation we were in before the ban, with the vast majority of bars allowing smoking, otherwise they would be at a unfair disadvantage. Now I'm the kind of person who cares about my health, and I don't want to go out to a bar filled with smoke, and guess what I now can't find one. This means that now I can't go out to a bar. So in the reversed situation those who care about their health lose the ability to go out for a night to cater for those who do not care about their health! Doesn't that seem slightly wrong to you?
Also ron your argument saying that the non-smokers should go out side is interesting but quite flawed, you assume that the smokers will all light up at the same time, that there will be no other smokers in the pub, and that the smoke doesn't linger.
Thank you for posting those corrections, zondi. I wanted to but frankly am tired of arguing the obvious.
Zondi;
I don't know what you & the others are getting off on... but the name of this group is not "Tell me the reasons why smoking is bad for you & others around you being exposed to it"
Instead... it is trying to make a statement that now that "all bars" are smoke free... we "smokers" are left out in the cold.
At least "before" people were trying to pacify people like you by having "Non Smoking Sections"... but now people like you have no respect for us "smokers" at all & will not even allow us a place to go. And You Find That Fair?
You say...
This means that now I can't go out to a bar. So in the reversed situation those who care about their health lose the ability to go out for a night to cater for those who do not care about their health! Doesn't that seem slightly wrong to you?
Yet you could always go to a non smoking restaurant & have dinner & a drink, in one that was NON SMOKING. You could always go to the Opera or the Theater & enjoy yourself there.
No one MADE it so that YOU were not welcome. No one left you out in the cold.
You had the choice to enter a smoke filled bar or NOT. You had a choice to go to a gay bar or NOT.
But instead... you chose to FORCE EVERYONE to live the way you choose & if they are uncomfortable... SCREW THEM!
Well... I don't like living like that. I like to make my choices. I would not go into a Gay Bar... simply because I do not wish to be in that environment.
Yet what you want to do is to make sure that EVERYONE acts in a certain way & not just some places either... but EVERYWHERE!
I find that selfish. Again... we are not talking health. Bars are not a health farm! Quit trying to make them into one.
HANNAH -
You must be referring to laws in a different jurisdiction to mine. I refer to the laws in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. What jurisdiction are you referring to?
Perhaps you should read the introduction to both of the related FB groups:
"Want to show the smokers how many people are happy about the smoking ban? Want to make sure pubs stay smoke free zones? Want to celebrate the fact that our pubs don't stink anymore? Want to take it even further and ban smoking outside entrances to buildings and pubs?"
See how we are talking about pubs/hotels? Well, there you go. Care to rebutt (excuse the pun) my comment now?
The name of this group is:
"THE EXPERIMENT: How many facebook members are FOR and AGAINST the smoking ban?"
It IS NOT:
"Want to show the smokers how many people are happy about the smoking ban? Want to make sure pubs stay smoke free zones? Want to celebrate the fact that our pubs don't stink anymore? Want to take it even further and ban smoking outside entrances to buildings and pubs?"
So yes... if you cannot read... it is not a disease that you could have gotten from smoking (as I know today... but who knows... maybe later)... but still it is about "Smokers" having the ability to socialize in Public.
As you might all be able to see... we are loosing the battle.
If you look at the two lots of Members... the "Anti Smokers" are winning again!
Not so much because they are right!
Hell I can shoot down almost any argument they might make.
They keep going back to the same old thing.
Smoking & "second hand smoke" causes Cancer & who is going to dispute that?
It has nothing to do with giving "smokers the freedom of having their own place to smoke"... nor does it have to do really with their risk of their health. Otherwise we would be passing laws about "peeing in the pool" & eating beans (because it makes you fart too much in public)
See... those are things that they feel they cannot regulate.
They claim that Bars are "just as full as they ever were" & that the amount of money made in these bars is the same, or comparable with what it was before when the smokers were allowed to smoke in the Bars.
Yet on the other side... they do not want smokers to have "any section" for themselves, as they know that no Bar could survive on it's own being "non smoking" if there were other Bars in the Vicinity that were smoking.
They know they are the "Minority" forcing it on the "Majority" & that is why they will not even consider having "One Bar" even out of "5 Bars" being "smoking Bars".
They are convinced "more than I am" that everyone would flock to that "One Bar" & put the others out of business!
Out of "one side" of their mouth they claim that it is so much better now that they can go to a Bar that has no smoke in it... but they are not willing to put that up to a test.
The fact is "& they know it" that a "Non Smoking Bar" surrounded by "Smoking Bars" would go out of business within a short period of time, otherwise... "Smart Businessmen" would have been opening up these "Non Smoking Bars" on a regular basis!
Yet they never did. Why? It is obvious! They would not make money & could not compete with "smoking Bars".
Why? Simply because they are in the "Minority" of people who frequent Bars & spend "vast amounts of money" in them!
If you dis agree... put up or shut up!
Let me open a "smoking bar" in your town or City. If it is no threat & you are so much happier & there are so many like you... then why not?
If we have "so many more" people voting that they do not want smoking back in Bars... then why would you be afraid of "One Bar" in your Vicinity offering Smoking? Huh?
I mean look at the numbers! Your side wins! So it should be no threat right?
Oh but it is ... isn't it? Now why would that be? If more people want "non smoking bars" by this poll... what possible threat would it be to you if you had "One Venue" that offered Smoking?
Based on the Poll here... it should be no threat at all! Heck... based on this poll... that Bar would probably go out of business anyway!
Right??
Yet... for some reason you know that is not the case. If you do not wish to explain it... then I will for you.
The reason is:
Smokers do not stand up for themselves. They know it is a bad habit & they know it causes Cancer & they only wanted to go to the Bar in the first place to have a good time & let loose! They don't need or want an argument! They no more want to debate that subject, than do they wish to debate "peeing in the pool" or the "bad aspects" of drinking itself. They just want to relax & do stuff that feels "comfortable to them" & debating this subject is "NOT Comfortable" to them, & so instead they will simply "avoid it".
That is why a poll... like the one created here is not an honest & fair one.
70% of the people against your side... simply would rather "walk away" than debate it!
And you know that don't you?
That is why you want a "Total Ban"... as YOU KNOW that they might not "speak up" but... they will still migrate to the "Smoking Bar".
If what I say is not true... then allow it! Allow a Bar to open in your Town or City that allows Smoking! That would be fair! It would be a "Strike for Freedom"!
But... no you won't... will you?
You won't because you know that "although they will not debate it... they will still go to that "Smoking Bar" & leave you sitting alone... with your morals & scruples intact"!
So in other words... your a Coward... aren't you? Afraid to give others a choice, because that choice "you know" will be obtuse to what you desire.
So there you sit claiming that the bars are just as full & how much better it all is without having to deal with the "smokers" that you used to all race to join & are no longer there... but
Out of sight... out of mind right?
Yes you ARE out of your mind.
teflonjim2006 you seem to be making a distinction where none exists. You are not being banned from bars, you are simply not being allowed to fill it up with carcinogenic smoke.
"No one MADE it so that YOU were not welcome. No one left you out in the cold."
You blocking me from bars because I care about my health is just the same as me blocking you from bars because you cannot go without for a short period. To say any different is to go down the beautiful line of saying addicts aren't responsible for their action, even if those actions kill people. Smokers are making me not welcome, smokers are leaving me out in the cold (literally if you read rob).
"I find that selfish. Again... we are not talking health. Bars are not a health farm! Quit trying to make them into one."
Bars are not a health farm and so we shouldn't care about the effect anything that goes on inside them have on your health? So if you were shot in a bar by someone addicted to murder, you shouldn't be able to press charges?
"I don't know what you & the others are getting off on... but the name of this group is not "Tell me the reasons why smoking is bad for you & others around you being exposed to it" "
This is a little strange statement as the reason why people are for or against the ban is due to the health issues, at least partly. Also I didn't bring them up, I just got a little inflamed at kate361 calling alot of people dying statistically negligible.
"Yet what you want to do is to make sure that EVERYONE acts in a certain way & not just some places either... but EVERYWHERE!"
Incorrect hyperbole, I'm not saying you have to act one way everywhere, I'm saying you have to act one way in public places where it harms others.
You say I could just go to a non-smoking bar or club? well I have to say I would, if I had known of any that exist. Economics result in no bar wants the disadvantage of being smoke free all by its lonesome.
The problem is if a group of ten are going out for a night, and they have to pick either a smoking or non-smoking bar, it takes only one of them being a smoker to force all the rest to go to the smoking bar.
Now lets talk about some people you actions are actually banned from bars and clubs. One of the many that have fatal reactions to cigarette smoke. These people are being banned from clubs, and in order to cater for your addiction. These people have no control over their affliction, nor do they carry any blame for it, and yet they should be banned from bars.
Also those who work in bars have the choice whether to breath smoke or get a new job. Hardly a fair choice to be forcing upon them.
"Hell I can shoot down almost any argument they might make."
Seeing your last post I can't help but feel somewhat amused. I think you are the only one that sees these arguments falling out the sky.
I love your argument for the silent majority. So silent and so unwilling to confront people that they wont even join a facebook group...... yer. Doesn't make any sense to me either.
"If you dis agree... put up or shut up!"
My my we are being aggressive. I choose put up. Where and when? (there is no space in disagree btw).
ok zondi;
Put up then. Get your town or City to allow a "smoking bar" & you put up one "non smoking" right beside it!
That's not only fair... but if your bar is more successful than the "non smoking one" ... you have just proved by "Free Enterprise" that no ban is necessary.
That's how you "put up".
Oh I loved that quote... "addicted to murder"... sheesh where did you pull that out of? Some hole that was brown in color?
Peeing in the pool can cause AIDS there zondi. If you go to a "gay bar" you might be hit on by people of your own sex & that might make you feel uncomfortable. If you go to a "nude beach" you might be pressured to take off your clothes. If that would make you feel uncomfortable... I would advise you not to go there.
Yet in this case... it runs much deeper does it not zondi? You want it banned "EVERYWHERE"!
So far you have your way with Bars. So far there is no "Public Competition", although not for long. I myself am thinking of opening "my doors" on a Saturday night for a $10 cover & I will have music & Internet access. It will all be illegal... but hey... catch me fine me? I can bet you the fine will be far less than the profit I will make.
However zondi... there is a house for sale beside me. You could buy it & offer the same thing as me... but yours of course would be "non smoking". I am glad you are willing to "put up" zondi. I will tell my neighbor that they might have a buyer!
I believe that smokers should have some pubs/bars/clubs that have designated smoking areas, if not have the entire bar/pub/club as a designated smoking establishment.
Non-smokers do not have to go to those establisments, since there are already non-smoking, smoke-free bars/clubs/pubs. No one is making them work there, or be there.
I am a non-smoker and think smokers should have the right to smoke indoors and not be forced to smoke in the cold/rain outside.
For the ones who are against smoking in clubs, no one is forcing you to go to a club that has smoking. You have smoke-free clubs, why force your preference on people who have different preferences?
People who want smoke-free should have smoke-free clubs, and people who want to be able to smoke, should have smoking establishments.
End of story, everyone's happy.
Zondi, I am not saying that the 11000 people (or however many) are insignificant themselves, just that anything less than 1% is statistically negligible, i.e. it is not a large enough difference for a positive correlation to be made. This is not about emotion, it's about maths. If it was about emotion, then I'd be the last person to say cancer victims are insignificant - my grandmother died of lung cancer and four other close relatives have died of pancreatic or bowel cancer. I actually find the way you have blithely misinterpreted my words to be rather offensive. It's just maths. I'm not going to get drawn into a long debate on statistics.
I am not disputing that being a smoker massively increases your risk of lung cancer, but causality amongst people who don't smoke is incredibly difficult to ascertain, especially given that nobody is really sure about the mechanism by which lung cancer is precipitated. You say that "more than 85% of cases can be attributed directly to smoking" - brilliant, tell me the mechanism and we can work out a cure. If you can't, we'll just have to settle for "smoking massively increases your risk of lung cancer" or "85% of lung cancer victims have smoked."
In my last post I don't believe that I stated a direct opinion about the ban. I can't speak for everybody but where I was living before the ban we had a couple of non-smoking bars - one rather infamously closed down before the ban due to it losing too much money. I even went to it with a mixed group of smokers and non-smokers, so I did my bit to support it! Just a shame the supposed majority of people who are so vocal about being for the ban weren't so vocal when it came to deciding where they were going out with their friends.
Personally, I really can't see what's wrong with having premises licenced for tobacco. What credible argument can you possibly have against that? For that reason I cannot see that the question of whether you are for or against the smoking ban is valid - I am both for and against it and conversely neither for nor against it. Maybe the question should be "what do you think of the smoking ban?"
I'm for smoking bans on places where minors are allowed, because a child doesn't have a choice in the matter, but for pubs/bars, We're all over the age of 18(or 21 in some places), and we can choose to leave the bar if we do not like it when someone is smoking.
The license concept gives me a good idea for a compromise. Simply, any bar who wishes to be licensed to remain smoking, must pay a fee(annual,bi-annual, monthly or weekly)and must provide a well ventilated, sealed off designated smoking area. If a bar is not wiling to follow the criteria, then they can't smoke. Any bar who has the cash to throw around and wants their bar smoking, then the option is still there.
If non-smokers, or smoking ban supporters don't like it, then all they would have to do is boycott it. Simply enough, they can't afford it, and probably drop the smoking licence, and go non smoking anyways.
The most sensible comment I have seen so far Odin.
Guys, what about something that pleases both smokers & non-smokers?
Have a gander at www.virtuebyvad-tech.com
It's a cigarette which is smoked indoors legally but does not smell or emit harmful airborne substances
VIRTUE IS THE FUTURE!
Guys, what about something that pleases both smokers & non-smokers?
Have a gander at www.virtuebyvad-tech.com
It's a cigarette which is smoked indoors legally but does not smell or emit harmful airborne substances
VIRTUE IS THE FUTURE!
Keep the ban... it's fun to point and stare at all the sad smokers huddled in the cold and rain outside a pub desperate for their fix. Perhaps someone could put together a photo album together of pathetic smokers braving the elements to get their drug hit...
Yep... that's what it has come down to ... if actually the anti-smokers have totally gotten their way (& they might have), but what have they really won. Either they have segregated themselves or segregated smokers, or both... but either way I believe it is a "loosing proposition" for all.
the suggestion that bars/pubs are closing as a direct result of the smoking ban is ridiculous (Unless you count cigar lounges and the like)
Having actually worked in the industry for several years, I can tell you that the ban has actually made a lot of bars busier. Granted it makes the doorman's job of tracking who's smoking and who's waiting in line a little bit difficult, it's definately worth it.
As far as patio smoking goes, they are still considered part of the establishment, and smoking is not legally permitted on those either.
As a non smoker, I enjoy being able to go to work and not come home reeking of cigarette smoke.
However, in edmonton, things are going a little bit too far.
a ban on smoking 5 meters from any door, window, or vent intake has been put into effect. That's a little bit extreme.
But indoors? I'm all for the ban. And it has not had the derogatory effect people claim.
As far as smokers spending more money than non smokers? I disagree again. Smoking has nothing to do with the size of your bar tab. That's not a claim, that's industry experience.
I don't know where your idea's come from... but if you were to ban people from "chewing gum" in a bar... you would loose some customers.
It is "quite obvious" that if you ban smoking... you will loose more.
I am "all for" having Non-Smoking bars or sections... but not to allow a bar to go "Smoking" is taking it a bit too far... as they did in Edmonton.
I think that is all anyone here is asking for. Somewhere for people to go who wish to smoke & drink in public.
Yet when people make such "vast statements" that bars are actually busier now... I have to say... if that was true... a "Total Ban" should not have been even considered in the first place & furthermore, if so... why did not more "Non Smoking" bars open when it was totally free for them to do so & cater to "Your" kind of crowd?
They did not... for obvious reasons & that is why I am saying what you are saying makes no sense, but we still would have no argument between "you & I"... I am sure... if there was an establishment that opened as a "Smoking Bar" now. It should be no threat at all.
It is a fact that establishments are closing every day due to the smoking ban - If you don't believe it, google 'smoking ban closures' or 'smoking ban bingo' or smoking ban casino'or 'smoking ban profit/revenue'. The facts are there for everyone to see:
- 1 in 9 of all bingo halls have been closed
- Massive brands like Mecca, closing 9 of its establishments already
In fact the ban has made what was a level playing field, very difficult for your average town pub to compete.
This ban will effect us all - smokers & non-smokers. We need to unite to protect the British economy and our beloved trade - unless you want them to close or put their prices up?????
These electric cigs like Virtue should be the bridge between the 2 forums.
As people become more educated, the prevalence of smoking in our society will diminish. Unfortunately due to the addictive properties of nicotine, this will not happen anytime soon.
teflonjim2006 is right in saying that smoking bars would triumph over non-smoking bars, but this is only true because of our past experiences.
However this will change over the next 30 years as kids today will grow up believing non-smoking bars are the norm.
teflonjim2006, don't worry too much about this however, I doubt you'll ever live to see this day.
ifunk... I love your solution.
If you just deny people their freedom for 30 Years... they will just accept it & the problem will simply go away & people will blindly accept their loss of freedom... possibly they will learn to accept it.
I was just wondering though. Can you give me an example of something that was popular in the past being banned & how people have come to accept not having it in 30 Years?
Not saying it is not possible ifunk. However can I give you another "possible scenario"?
Inside of a couple of years, speakeasy's (illegal establishments) pop up in every town & city, at such an alarming rate that there is no way for police to combat them all, even though their "limited budgets" are not structured to combat busting people for allowing other people refuge for enjoying their "legal habit" & so they prevail.
Now the thing is, with these speakeasy's is that once they have drawn a bunch of people in to do something "against the law" & defiant of it, they also attract & allow other illegal things.
Smoking pot should not be a problem in such establishments... & of course it would therefore make it a great place to sell that product. If your going to sell pot... why not ecstasy too?
Then the booze that they sell...
At first you would buy that "legal stuff" & the Government would get their tax... but as people gather in this illegal establishment & see the clientele growing... they find cheaper sources for supply. People open up more stills & you get an "underground market" for that.
Then the cigarettes they smoke...
Since this would be a "great market" for selling smokes in... the "underground cigarette industry" takes off in "leaps & bounds".
People going to these illegal establishments becomes the norm & towns & cities are confronted with either paying "much higher taxes" to pay for the police to combat this, that finally some towns & cities finally give in & allow certain establishments a licence to allow smokers to smoke, & cut their crime rate in that town or city by 50-70%
There you go ifunk. 2 thirty year scenario's & would it not just "piss you off" if I WAS there just to discuss with you how it all turned out in the end & you were wrong?
teflonjim2006 - It's obvious trying to educate you is about a futile as teach a grasshopper manners, however I am intrigued by your narrowminded selfish comments.
My point is that you think you it's normal for people to smoke in bars and pubs, when it's only normal because you've been living in that environment for your entire life. Just because something used to happen, doesn't mean it should continue to happen.
If everyone had your mindset we'd still be drowning witches and believe the world was flat and the sun was revolving around Earth.
From your previous comments I'm guessing you're over 50 (assuming you started smoking when you were 10 years old).
So you should be aware of some of the other recent progressions in society.
- Wearing seatbelts in cars
- Driving sober
- Outlawing of slavery
- Acceptance of homosexuality
- Equality of genders and skin colours
So why not just admit defeat and adapt to your new environment? If you don't, natural selection will swallow you whole.
My Dear ifunk;
I said... "Give me an example of something else that was legal (that they did not outlaw entirely) & yet banned. I saw none.
Now I have done some thinking for you & I could give you one example.
Chewing Tobacco.
They never outlawed it... but ALSO never banned it. It did basically die a "slow death" on it's own & you would be "hard pressed" to find a place that still sports a spittoon.
All your examples are of things they "outlawed" totally or of things they made new laws upon, which is NOT what is happening here.
I am actually 49... if that makes any difference, but I think if you go to your average Tobacco shop, & conduct a survey, it is basically a "cross section" of the entire population (young & old, rich & poor) that buy their products.
Therefore your belief in Smoking is done by the "older generation" & something that will just "die out" with the "younger generation", is probably false.
What we are talking about here is consumption of a legal product done in a public place, by people who wish to do that in a public place & your belief that the people who want this should just be ignored, is simply very selfish indeed. It also does not make any sense.
There has only been ONE other time that society BANNED something that a large segment of the population enjoyed doing, & doing it in public.
A little History lesson for you. It was called Prohibition.
Concluded that it caused so much "Public Lawlessness" that the Police found impossible to control, it was repealed as a very BAD idea, but retained in some States, to basically a loss in overall public revenue.
This falls into the same category, & honestly falls into the lines of where "People who refuse to learn from History... must repeat it".
The new smoking laws aren't the same as your "Prohibition" example.
The new smoking laws can be compared to the laws of driving under the influence.
The are not introduced to protect you, the smoker (or drinker) - they are to protect those around you.
You said:
"Therefore your belief in Smoking is done by the "older generation" & something that will just "die out" with the "younger generation", is probably false."
I didn't say smoking would die out - it's far too addictive. What I DID say is that the idea of smoking in a public closed-in area would die out.
You quote: "All your examples are of things they "outlawed" totally or of things they made new laws upon, which is NOT what is happening here."
All of those examples I gave seemed normal and acceptable at the time they were not outlawed, but we as a society recognised the need to change, and we did. And now the current way is considered normal and acceptable.
Well ifunk;
Your comparing "apples & oranges" here. You are saying that "Everyone" needs protection from "second hand smoke" & yet you are not advocating for a ban on smoking for Adults... & if you were... you know you would loose.
Well, I am saying that if I, as an Adult, wish to patronize an establishment that will cater to my desire to smoke, it should be allowed!
If you are going to tell me (the Adult) that I am not allowed to have a "legal place to go" in order to consume my legal drug in public, then I warn you... & I am sure it will be proven, that "illegal establishments" will fill in the gap eventually.
The cost of this happening is a loss in revenue for the "bar owners", & more than that, many other parts of society, which I already mentioned. The further migration to other "illegal things" will become the norm. Just as in Ontario... when the tax on Tobacco became too high... smuggling became rampant. With cigarette smuggling, came booze smuggling & when you have your "average white collar worker" having his own dealer... you begin to have anarchy.
That was already proven in "recent history" of the 90's & it caused a massive repeal of the tobacco tax to combat this.
Now you speak of:
- Wearing seat belts in cars
Which was a NEW law & not meant to protect "Others" as you say, but merely the occupants of the vehicle. I too am against that. As an adult you should have a choice. You play with fire... you get burned. Yet it has no reference to this ban
- Driving sober
No new law, as before they had drunk driving laws, they had "drunk in public" laws & the only difference is now how much more it is enforced.
- Outlawing of slavery
Really off the wall... as it was never going to be legal to have a slave at home, but not in public. It really does not match.
- Acceptance of homosexuality
How this compares with having "Smoking Bars" is beyond me, other than if you admit that "Gay Bars" are legal & heck they don't even have to post a sign. You as an Adult must figure that out for yourself. Yet in this case... they are licenced & not denied because of their patrons, as you will not allow with smokers.
- Equality of genders and skin colours
There was a day when it was accepted to "divide people" & segregate them, but it was stopped because it was wrong. What your argument is for, is to begin or continue this segregation process again, but not on something people are, or believe in (as with the Jews), but by not allowing people to be comfortable doing something that is legal in public.
You seem not to understand that I cannot harm you if I sit in a Bar which is designated "smoking" while you sit in one that is designated "Non Smoking" & your belief instead is that if I wish to practice my legal habit... I in turn should be banned from being a public person... TOTALLY!
For those of you on Facebook who would like to promote a "Speakeasy" in your area... join this group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20880734952
You have forgotten one variable in your experiment. Not all smokers like to advertise the fact that they smoke, especially on Facebook where they may have family members as friends (like parents, or younger relatives to whom they are role models). I don't know anyone who would be ashamed of not wanting smoking back. You will have a lot more non-smokers than smokers because of that fact. If you could find a way to make it anonymous (while stopping people from multiple voting) then you would have a fairer race...
I have been a smoker for the last 16yrs. My concerns as a smoker really have little to do with me personally in regards to where I enjoy my cigarettes. My thoughts turn to the business owners who are now being told and forced on how they can operate their privately owned ventures. It's hard to imagine or at least it should be in a free country such as ours. The amount of customers has declined for establishments and therefore they suffer with a loss on revenues. Should they decide either on there own, or with a patrons poll of the people that frequent such places, the pub stands to be fined ridiculous sums in fines as well as being shut down for days, or even up to weeks if they break these dictatorship reflecting "new laws" (I do not own any commercial businesses.) Thanks for your time.
As a non-smoker it may be suprising that iv joined this pro-smoke debate, but i have to agree with the others. Smokers not only used to mask the smell of urine and stale beer that now frequents pubs and bars but it also made clubs etc more social. I for one went out with my smoker friends on my birthday and found that they kept leaving the club to go and have a fag...some night out that turned out to be! There is just no atmosphere anywhere anymore, especially in clubs."If you dont like the smoke, get out of the kitchen" I for one wished that was still the case.
Check this great new Quit Smoking Counter facebook application
http://apps.facebook.com/quitsmokingcounter
I agree with Chelley about the clubs being quieter: I hate to say it but it's really affected the atmosphere in places.
Speaking as a happy EX-smoker I think there should be a facebook group to get the smokers to commit to their night out being 'smoke-free', think of entering a club as akin to boarding a flight to somewhere exotic (stanstead to Newquay wouldn't do, too short). Make more of an effort to stay in the club and try to resuscitate those ancient social skills of talking to NEW people, trying to find NEW connections, not just lazily sticking with your fellow-nicotine-addicts.
And finally, in all conscience I couldn't join either group, as the anti-smoking one also wants to ban smoking at entrances to buildings and that is just fascistic imho!
I am a smoker--40+ years. The sadness at this forum is the lack of articulation that smokers present in these "arguments." They generally come off as two-syllable buffoons. I appreciate their frustration and anger. I also appreciate that some smokers who would like to quit have an opportunity to do so on their own volition. Using the inconvenience of smoking bans is not their answer. Comparing business losses before or after the ban is not the issue. The issues are the techniques that the anti-smoking lobby use to marginalize smokers as lepers. Also, They have openly admitted that they would use any guise to get their point across. Go to forces.org for the facts. This is a smokers website, one of many, and they give links to the anti websites.
You notice how they're going after fat people? It was easy to go after us because there was no sympathy for smokers. Is there any sympathy for obese people? Then, people with dangerous or other "unhealthy" life styles. Are they going after extreme sports enthusiasts next?
The key point is that a draconian decision was made without giving smokers and non-smokers a choice as to where they would spend their leisure dollars. And the reasons are flimsy.
Anecdotal experiences aside, I would gladly engage any commenter's on this page as to the legitimacy of their health claims.
We are being run by a nanny state and your attention being directed to a recognizable segment of VOTING ADULTS keeps you from seeing what is really going on.
respectfully
dano
"Each year, more than 1000 non-smoking Canadians die from second-hand smoke"
-The Canadian Cancer Society
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html
from a smokers point of view:
Pros of ban:
1.meet many new and fun people outside in the smokers area its almost like an exclusive club!
2.i dnt wnt people to get for free the smoke i pay excessive amounts to breathe! ( this may seem like a joke bt im a strong beliver of this fact!)
Cons:
1. in the winter its bloody freezing!
2.some people dnt knw the meaning of anti persperant
bt the final line is what done is done and i doubt laws making smokers lives easier will be introduced bt the complete opposite
I love the ban on smoking in pubs/bars. I love that my clothes no longer smell of butt-smoke. I love that my throat no longer burns from the butt-smoke. But what I love most is that the ban pisses-off all those rude self-destructives mofus that don't give two puffs about the health of those of us who are non-smokers who like to drink in pubs/bars. Go outside. Better yet, quit smoking. KEEP THE BAN.
Hear, hear!
I think the smoking ban has lead to the current troubles growing in the streets of Melbourne Aus weekend nights.
People go outside for a smoke and are exposed to street elements, no longer under proper supervision of the club/pub.
Which has lead to this new law 2am lockout in Melbourne City. 2am doors lock and if you outside smoking you are out for the rest of the night bla bla
Problem with that is in Australia our public transport stops at midnight and we havnt enough cabs. People have difficulty getting home WHY they choose to stay in clubs all night...
So now we have this situation in Melbourne city on the week ends of masses of people stranded in the city and a good lot of them will be locked out of the clubs after 2am.
what do you reckon? do you think we are on the right track to resolving the growing violance in our streets in the Melbourne city weekend nights..or do you think our state is heading for chaos and anarchy..
and all because of a few fucking millitant hippies that got in office??
Thanks...
Canan eoy
Articles
Hey guys if you want to show your support for the Conservative movement at the House Gallery or would like the gas prices to go down than you really should watch these interviews of Supervisor Delgaudio and some of the Congressmen talking about what is really going on with the Speaker Pelosi incident. Rate it high, comment, watch and post everywhere you can and we may be able to do our small part to help the Republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQCbrh8pbfE
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJX6OApc6As
Nice blog. Please come and visit my blog about Quit Cigarette Smoking :
http://quit-cigarettesmoking.blogspot.com/
Germany's top court rejects two states' anti-smoking laws
A German ban on smoking in indoor public places should be overturned for small bars, the country's highest court ruled on Wednesday.
The Karlsruhe-based Federal Constitutional Court said small bars were at an unfair disadvantage due to the ban, rendering it in breach of the constitution.
The measures came into effect in most of Germany's 16 states at the start of the year.
The ruling upheld a complaint lodged by the owners of two small bars in Berlin and a disco operator in the southwestern state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, who argued the anti-smoking legislation had put their business at risk.
Almost a third of the population smokes in Germany, where lighting up became a badge of freedom and tolerance after Hitler's Nazi regime cracked down on the habit in the 1930s.
An attempt by the federal government to introduce a nationwide ban failed in 2006, and many bars and restaurants in Berlin flouted the ban when it came into force in January.
Hans-Juergen Papier, the court's president, said the law would need to be redrawn by the end of 2009. Until then, smoking should be allowed in bars and restaurants of less than 75 square metres that lack a separate smokers' area, he said. In the case of the disco, the court said the ban should be repealed for discos open only to adults.
As most of Germany's states have similar smoking laws to Berlin and Baden-Wuerttemberg, the ruling is likely to set a precedent for future complaints.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080730/thl-uk-germany-smoking-court-b2e59e8.html
I'm a smoker.
When the ban first came in here in the UK, I was a bit eeved about the whole thing.
BUT in hindsight it has made things better, non-smokers can sit and chat with whomever they wish, without breathing my smoke.
Everyone knows smoking is bad for you, some people choose to smoke, others don't. Fair enough which ever you choose.
Some smokers do feel singled out by the Ban because of all the tax we pay for cigarettes but does the fact we get taxed really make it ok for us to force others to smoke, when they have choosen not to smoke?
It doesn't.
Pub and bars arent going out of buisness, although they may appear empty. If anything people are going out more. Because non-smokers dont second hand smoke, and smokers can still smoke if just in the beer gardens or outside on the street. Does it really make that much difference where you smoke?
On one hand you could be breathing your own and about 30-40 other peoples inside, OR sit outside and just have your own. I know i prefer smoking outside, even before the ban i rarely smoke inside, because a smoke outside is more refreshing.
As for teflonjim don't let him be the sort of person who shows you what smokers are like, because people like him are what cause predjuces, he says smokers wont go out and drink in a bar where smoking is banned. Whereas i know for a fact that me and my smoker friends will go out and drink or to just sit in a pub/bar without complaining about the ban.
If its cold out side, well its tough luck isnt it, we choose to smoke, and we can live with the health problems. What harm will standing in the cold do us really in comparrison.
I would rather smoking outside, because its my choice. Why should i force it on others?!
Some of the people on here obviously haven't got their facts right on smoking and health - they simply repeat the propaganda which has been spread on contentious "evidence" (ie - the SCOTH report to name just one) and they have swallowed the brain washing without questions because it fits their own personal prejudices.
To the people against smoking and personal choice and freedom, ask yourselves if orgs like ASH, the BHF, and CRUK would have as much to gain from this propaganda if they weren't funded to the hilt by drug companies who are competing with tobacco companies to supply smokers with nicotine through the NHS.
That they claim to be acting in the good health of the nation because they are altruistic charities is what really stinks in this debate.
Any concerns about passive smoking can be addressed with choice. Is choice realy such a radical idea in what is supposed to a free society?
Choice is the bottom line between the views and opposing opinions of the both the anti-smoking industry and the tobacco industry.
Of course choice is only an issue when it comes to smoking because if we have choice then we are in control of our own lives and they can't have that, can they.
I don't want to hurt anyone. I do want to be left alone without being called names such as child abuser when I have brought up four healthy and happy children, or being abused, or sacked from my job because I smoke out of work hours... or being prevented from applying for a job simply because I'm a smoker. Replace the word "smoker" with any other ethnic group and it would be racism or discrimination.
The sad fact of the law is that govt encourages discrimination against what is now a minority group - -- and then justifies it by telling those in the majority of that group- ie the underclass and working classes - that they are too stupid to know thier own minds and therefore need protecting.
And to the peson on about modern Britian and NU Labour - if that is your idea of how you would like to see society in future then I hope you are in the minority... and I also hope that one day this obsessive control freak govt bans something that you like, then makes others around you hate you for doing it.
Only then will you and others like you begin to see that the day freedom died was the day they banned people from being able to choose how to live their own lives and from doing as they wish with their own private property.
The smoking ban is the most divisive piece of legislation ever constructed. Those of you who support it should know you are going down a very, very dangerous road. What on earth are you doing? Have you no conscience about the kind of small, narrow-minded, and intolerant world you are leaving for future generations?
If that is the world of the future then I can only hope that smoking kills me off before then but I doubt it... after 40 years, I'm still smoking and still here and rarely even ill.
None of this really matters because the ban is never going to be revoked, especially with all the health benefits to keeping smoking to outside/well ventilated areas.
Clubs are more empty because people have to go outside to smoke, but they are a lot cleaner and healthier for those who remain indoors. I'm an ex-smoker and even now as a non smoker the smell doesn't bother me unless it is being directly blown into my face, but it was immediately noticeable how much better and cleaner the air was inside after the ban was enforced. I never thought that smoking inside was that noticeable unless it was badly ventilated, in which case you felt like you were choking. But no matter which stance I take, it isn't going to change. There is no way that they could allow it again now and lift the law that they have set, because of the obviously justified move to protect non-smokers from passive/second-hand smoke. The uproar would be incredible. So I am joining neither group. Obviously I would join the No smoking in Pubs/Clubs if any, but since it won't change anyway.. I don't think I will.
Fuck all of you who have signed up. especially maudley, who said she doesn't care if they all shut down.
If you don't like them so much, DONT GO THERE. Dont go there, and let me smoke there.
You know what goes really well with a beer? A smoke! You guys are trying to find 1 million people who support the ban, when there's millions who hate it.
Non smokers have taken away just about all of smoker rights, and make us pay hideous amounts in taxes for our addictions.
Never have any of those on your side been willing to come to the table willing to comprimise. How about a sealed room, with proper ventilation, made for smoking? You don't like smoking, don't go in there.
Look at airport terminals for example, where you _can't_ leave the terminal to go outside to have a smoke. Atleast the airport in Washington DC has a seperate smoking lounge, where you can go to. As a smoker, I'll admit, its pretty nasty in there, but noones making you go in, you insensitive clods.
Now if any of you have been to the New England states, it gets _really_ cold there. Why should we have to suffer, just to keep your lungs clean? Stay the fuck away from the smokers if you can't tolerate it.
I'm tired of people coming up to me just to tell me that smoking is bad for you. Guess what? NO SHIT.
Why don't you all stop trying to legislate things away, and start taking responsibility for your own actions. You don't like smoke? Don't go to a pub that's filled with it, that simple.
Make sure you thank the next person who actively turns their head to not blow smoke in your direction as you walk by. It's the most courteous thing a smoker will ever do for you. But when you all try to ban together to take away places where we should be able to smoke...You make me want to blow that smoke in every single persons face that walks by. All you're doing is creating more contempt for non-smokers.
Non-smokers are not the problem. The majority are tolerant of smokers as they are of other lifestyle habits, races and creeds.
Anti-smokers are different. They hate smoking, they hate smokers, and they work to oppress, humiliate, and incite hate against smokers.
Sadly, smokers rights as human beings are being removed by a Government hoodwinked by cherry-picked and selective evidence from Big pharma commissioned studies which exagerate a minscule public health risk that could easily be addressed by choice and ventilation.
Smokers, and tolerant non-smokers should fight this ban and stand together. If we don't, then our children and grandchildren will grow up as slaves allowed no free will of their own.
Yesterday it was tobacco, tommorrow it's alcohol, next week it will be certain types of foods, what then will they take away from you on the grounds that it is "unhealthy" or has a "passive effect" on others.
It really is time to wake up and see what is happening and that this is about more than just a wisp of smoke.
I think if everyone is smart they will protest to the government to shut down the cigarette companies, Im a smoker and if you ask me its the governments fault that we are addicted, shutt it down if its such a problem dont just twist life to make people suffer end it now, yeah we will be shitty for a while but we will get over it and easier if no one is smoking around us.All it would take is for the smokers to stand up and speak out loud.most smokers would aggree with me if they were mature about it. Hey peer preasure got me and i regret it. I want my kids and there kids and the rest to be a society with no cigarettes. they also claim that the elderly cannot servive without it, so give them a smokers permitt that takes thumb prints and have that as a ounce off perscription and as they pass away that number be null invoid. nutt out the stuff END THIS NOW before our kids suffer.
I think if everyone is smart they will protest to the government to shut down the cigarette companies, Im a smoker and if you ask me its the governments fault that we are addicted, shutt it down if its such a problem dont just twist life to make people suffer end it now, yeah we will be shitty for a while but we will get over it and easier if no one is smoking around us.All it would take is for the smokers to stand up and speak out loud.most smokers would aggree with me if they were mature about it. Hey peer preasure got me and i regret it. I want my kids and there kids and the rest to be a society with no cigarettes. they also claim that the elderly cannot servive without it, so give them a smokers permitt that takes thumb prints and have that as a ounce off perscription and as they pass away that number be null invoid. nutt out the stuff END THIS NOW before our kids suffer.
I want my kids and grandkids to grow up in a country where they are free to make their own choices about how they live their lives.
I, and millions of other smokers and non-smokers, do not want any more interference from Govt.
Smoking is not addictive - it's habit forming. It's not like alcohol or heroin and anyone who says it is has either never smoked or has such hatred of smokers they have to exagerate the issue to incite even more hatred.... or of course to trawl in more Big Pharma money from the sale of nicotine patches, gum etc...
I am not as weak as some like Dee42c that I couldn't give up the cigs if I wanted to. I certainly worldn't need help from Govt to do it.
Get rid of the ban and then watch how many smokers give up of their own choice including me.
Leave the ban in place and those of us intelligent enough to care about honesty and freedom will continue to smoke until long after an obsessively healthy anti-smoker is dead from old age.
No, nicotine is very much physically addictive. ask anyone who has tried to quit, you'll get headaches, your nerves will feel like they're on fire, you'll want to kill everyone in your path to get your cigarette. To say otherwise is sheer ignorance.
I'm very much in agreement with Pat, here. You give a government an inch, and they will stretch it out into a mile. Especially when they have a horde of people following them. As s/he said, what's next?
Furthermore, it's been noted in history, the more you try to ban something, the less effective it is.
Don't legislate the problem away. If you don't want you kids to smoke, don't count on the government to do your own job for you. You catch them smoking, make them sit down and chainsmoke an entire pack of marlboro 100's. I garuntee you, they will not ever touch a cigarette again.
As with any such problem like this, wether it be alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, or underage sex...The government is not the solution. Education, unbias information, and parental influence will be what determines a persons choice in every situation.
In the mean time, Let me have a damn cigarette with my beer...Fuck, how about letting us take our drinks outside with us? All we want is the two together...'cept for all the people in the cold.
In reply to the comments made About my post that i made, it obviously got under peoples skin, I two want my kids to grow up in a free society where they make there own decision's but however i am a mother and not only is it my duty as a mum but i want to also stop my kids from making a mistake that is only going to hurt them or maybe not them but someone they love.IVE BEEN THERE,IT HURTS TO SEE SOMEONE LIKE THAT.But by all means go ahead let the unacknowledged make the important decisions that lay ahead who am i to stop anyone but like hell im gunna stop trying to change it the government may as well legalise pot while there killing us its just as bad the only difference is that the high you get from cigs is not noticeable but its still there your body is consumed by this drug.
Sorry Chris,
I still disagree about the addiction to tobacco and I speak as a smoker for 40 years who has known smokers all my life. None of them have had the symptoms you describe when they've given up and neither have I at times when I have been unable to smoke ... and I am talking over several days not just a few hours.
Perhaps it depends on which kind of tobacco/cigarettes are smoked ...or maybe even each peson's own indivdual reaction...?
I certainly don't say smoking is not PHYSICALLY addictive from sheer ignorance. It is pshycologically addictive and that's a diferent thing altogether.
If smoking is so addictive - and passive smoking is so dangerous - then why isn't everyone addicted to cigarettes. If it was true, then surely everyone would be smoking wouldn't they?
Dee - I entirely agree that as parents it is our duty to do all we can to stop our kids making mistakes but if mine had fallen into smoking, I would have been relieved that it wasn't something far more damaging or destructive to their lives.
I grew up in NZ and am now 31. For as long as I can remember there was no smoking in movie theaters!I've never been in a workplace with smoking either but have colleagues in their 60's who remember having ashtrays at their desk and whether they still smoke now or not would never want NZ offices to revert back to allowing smoking inside. I think even smokers would find it weird and kind of a fire risk.
Air NZ was one of the airlines that stopped smoking altogether on flights and so when we went on the American Continental Airlines when I was about 12 we found the smoking section a few rows down from us appalling.
The smoking ban in pubs came into effect in NZ in late 2003. Leading up to it there were similar arguments to the ones I see in this thread. Yet the law passed - the sky didn't fall, no more or less pubs closed than is usual in the ebb and flow of fashion and both smokers and non smokers alike continue to both enjoy their lives. In fact most of my 'social smoking 'friends(those that only smoked when out drinking with other smokers) who had been apprehensive about it before that found it great cos it helped them quit.
When myself and other kiwis have travelled through Europe to be honest we've found it a little bit quaint and twee seeing places with smoking cubicles and the like.
Society does move on and do change their collective consiousness on what is and isn't 'rational' or 'normal'.
Up until the late last century in most countries assault or rape of a spouse was not illegal. it would have been considered a man's 'right' and 'free will' to do as he pleased with his wife and no other persons or 'nanny state' politicians business to interfere!
I doubt many people (in NZ at least would agree with that now).
I grew up in NZ and am now 31. For as long as I can remember there was no smoking in movie theaters!I've never been in a workplace with smoking either but have colleagues in their 60's who remember having ashtrays at their desk and whether they still smoke now or not would never want NZ offices to revert back to allowing smoking inside. I think even smokers would find it weird and kind of a fire risk.
Air NZ was one of the airlines that stopped smoking altogether on flights and so when we went on the American Continental Airlines when I was about 12 we found the smoking section a few rows down from us appalling.
The smoking ban in pubs came into effect in NZ in late 2003. Leading up to it there were similar arguments to the ones I see in this thread. Yet the law passed - the sky didn't fall, no more or less pubs closed than is usual in the ebb and flow of fashion and both smokers and non smokers alike continue to both enjoy their lives. In fact most of my 'social smoking 'friends(those that only smoked when out drinking with other smokers) who had been apprehensive about it before that found it great cos it helped them quit.
When myself and other kiwis have travelled through Europe to be honest we've found it a little bit quaint and twee seeing places with smoking cubicles and the like.
Society does move on and do change their collective consiousness on what is and isn't 'rational' or 'normal'.
Up until the late last century in most countries assault or rape of a spouse was not illegal. it would have been considered a man's 'right' and 'free will' to do as he pleased with his wife and no other persons or 'nanny state' politicians business to interfere!
I doubt many people (in NZ at least would agree with that now).
When they made it law that Passports were required to travel between the USA and Canada... Did it stop travel? No! Yet it made a "drastic dent" in the amount of people crossing the border.
No the "Sky did not fall"... but it was just "another" legal freedom taken away from the masses.
So what you seem to agree with... if I am correct... that if YOU wish to open a bar or run one... you should be forced to adhere to certain silly guidelines that will make your business less profitable?
I as a smoker, used to frequent bars & it was a fun place to hang out on a Saturday night. I don't do that anymore! Why? Simply because I am not comfortable walking outside every 20 min for a smoke... especially when it is -20 outside!
I don't know how much I would spend on that night. $50-$100? Yet that money I would not spend there, along with all the others who feel the same way I do who also will not be spending their $100 there, I would suspect IS a pain in the butt to the Bar owners in general. Waitresses... Cooks... you know it just keeps going right down to the loss of jobs in the "bottling plant". I know you could say that where some industry looses... another gains... but in MY case... I just spend the same amount at home on booze, smokes & pizza & I just have less "social interaction" with other people. In other words... I have become a hermit.
Yet there are of course "people like you" that believe that YOUR Government should have more & more control of your own "day to day" activities & should limit your freedoms whenever possible... even when it is as easy as posting a sign on certain bars that they are "smoking establishments"... you simply don't think they have a right to exist... do you?
I suspect that the person from NZ has been brainwashed from a very young age and I think NZ has a culture of inciting smoker hatred and intolerance. This can be seen in Ash NZ's twin-towers anti-smoking campaign which equates smokers with the worst terrorist atrocity ever. It's disgusting and aims to inspire hatred against a minority group.
If you smoke, or if you don't but you truly value freedom, you must stand together and fight this ban and the prejudice shown by the uneducated, uninformed and ignorant whose only true aim is to eradicate smoking and those who support the freedom to do as they like because, in truth, what they do harms no-one.
for flip's sake Pat Nurse, 'harms no-one'?!?!?!?!?!? Oh, if only that were true, I would happily take up smoking again...but it isn't, and apart from anything else, who benefits from all the money spent by smokers on their nicotine fixes? The govt for a start, and the right-wing neo-con uber-capitalist tobacco companies, whose fortunes were founded on slavery...yeah, nice...
All this talk of freedom and fighting hatred and intolerance sounds actually rather hateful and intolerant to ME! No-one's stopping YOU from smoking, you're just being prevented from smoking in environments where people who choose NOT to smoke don't have to inhale your noxious wastes.
I think smoking addiction is a very real problem: I'm not overly-fond of the nanny state personally, and I hate the effect the ban has had on nightlife, with clubs being three-quarters empty because the smokers are4 all outside sucking on their c-sticks and spliffs, but the fact that people would rather waste so much money on setting something alight and coating their innards with tar is a real calamity. If only they put all that money and energy into something worthwhile, such as true freedom for all humanity!!!!! Freedom from hunger, war, exploitation!!!!! C'mon everybody, this smoking controversy is just a smokescreen!!!!!
Why don't you open your eyes. Check out Forces International. There is a scientific portal there with links to various surpressed studies that show exactly that smoking does not harm others. There is debateable evidence to suggest that it is actually good for some long-term smokers. Also check out the truthseeker blog.
As for the nictotine ... ask yourself about the pharmaceutical companies that fund ASH, CRUK, BHF and the NHS and have policitians such as Patricia Hewitt as adviser. They have everything to gain from getting guilty smokers to quit and use their very expensive nicotine replacement products.
Maybe the tobacco industry was built on slavery, maybe the sugar industry was, but it doesn't stop me taking it in my coffee, neither does it stop me buying cotton clothes.
I care not about the tobacco companies and I am not in the pay of either side of the debate. I do know that there are far more relevant issues relating to slavery today and that this Govt should be looking at how to stop illegal human trafficking than wasting it's time telling me what to do and where when I believe most strongly, backed by evidence and anecdote, that what I do harms no-one!
teflonjim, I like what you said and I completely agree, 'a simple sign outside saying smoking establishment' WOULD be fair and reasonable...although i personally am still glad that pubs etc are non-smoking as I find I really DO suffer when I have to inhale tobacco smoke (and I am an ex-smoker with damaged lungs...)
People have the right to not have to breath my smoke. That being said, I have the right to allow or disallow smoking on my property, commercial, or private, as I see fit. Don't like it if my bar does/doesn't allow smoking, go somewhere else. Vote with your money, not by having nosy politicians force your views on me, you statist slogs (that goes for conservatives just as much as liberals. ya boo snubs to all of yah.)
I absolutely agree with that last comment. Whatever the differences between our wide ranging views on this issue, choice is the ONLY option to satisfy us all.
I haven't yet heard an argument on here that has persuded me otherwise.
There is now a new quit smoking drug available in the market. This latest breakthrough is known as Chantix. It is able to help smokers snub out their addiction by working on the brain.
I'm a non-smoker and i'm against the ban. This is because there are is no evidence to proove the 'passive smoking' is indeed as bad for health as they claim. Name three people who hsve died of passive smoking? Before you mention Roy Castle, there is no evidence to proove he died from passive amoking.
Clothes smelling of smoke smell is no reason to justify a ban.
So its obvious, the ban is not justified.....I rest my case.
I was very glad when the smoking ban came in. I am heartily sick of the whingeing smokers who insist that their human rights are being violated..........They didn't care about my right to breathe smoke-free air before the ban.
... and I am heartily sick of puritans whinging about their right to clean air everywhere - as if such a thing exists anyway. Idiot!
Smokers DO NOT have the right to smoke wherever they like and neither do they want to. But they DO have a right to smoke SOMEWHERE INSIDE which will not affect those who don't like the smell of smoke.
Why do the puritans have to have EVERYTHING their own way? There is room for us both in this world and we would both be happy if we had choice!
The health factor affects all of us. Smoking is not healthy and in the long run makes the question "smoke or no smoke" an economical one. We also have the problem of being separated by a friend who smoked early in life a moral one. It is so sad this can not be clearly understood by so many, yet some get the picture. Goog for them.
Why does the description of this "race" assume that people who are against the smoking ban are smokers? ("there is another group I created with pretty much the same name except smokers (I'm guessing) can join it")
Isn't that the same as assuming someone is gay if they support gay rights?
No to smoking!!!
http://briefstories.blogspot.com/2009/04/smokers-body.html
Even as a non-smoker,I have to agree with those who feel it should be up to the owner of the business whether or not smoking is allowed or not allowed in any establishment. I find people's perfume and stuff like that just as offensive as someone smoking. More and more people are becoming chemically sensitive... should we also ban wearing perfume in public places? Where would the line be drawn? http://stores.ebay.com/TIN-SIGNS-and-THINGS-4-U
http://cgi.ebay.com/BETTY-BOOP-Says-Please-No-Smoking-nurse-TIN-SIGN-279_W0QQitemZ300218004395QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item300218004395&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14
Copy and paste the above into your browser to see a cute little "no smoking" sign for your establishment, which we sell in our eBay store
i am a smoker, and obviously would like to smoke, with freedom , wherever and whenever i want.i believe in the freedom of people to choose what they want to do,within the law, but the laws have crept into this section of freedom of choice. my problem with this is what will be next freedom of choice to be eliminated ?
must not buy meat ? must not buy alchol ? must not ... must not ....
I agree. Forget the whole smoking /non smoking thing for a minute. Every little tiny law they make us think is for our own good really -if you step back and look at it -really just robs someone somewhere of a freedom. It's like the gov't knows there are two sides basically: smoking and non. And the govt knows if they can divide us like that (divide and conquer) we will be so distracted by our strong views on these little petty things that we won't notice that our freedoms little by little, our powers to choose for ourselves are slowly being robbed away. You think the govt cares about our health? Someone smoking or even me smoking is not much of a threat to my health or yours compared to what is being allowed to be put into our food, our baby formulas, our drinking water supplies, the vaccines...or how about the ideas they are filling our heads with? And so what if allowing it to be up to the pub owner won't work? I really don't think that non smoking pubs would go out of biz and if they started to sink then the owner could start handing out cigs!! Or fold up and open a health food store. Whatever. It just doesn't make sense that companies are allowed to produce tobacco products only for the govt to say where and when they can be used. So you can't think that it's about our heatlh. It's about money and Power. I agree with the dude that mentioned that children can't decide to leave if their parents are smoking in the home or car. I agree it's a downright shame to see children trapped in cars while the parents are puffing away. I agree. It also burns me up to see parents giving their children junk food. But that's just me. Vaccines are another issue. I hate 'em. Some can't imagine not giving their children every single one that comes out on the market. My point is folks, I WANT THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE FOR MYSELF. If we let all these little petty ass laws be passed that restricts our freedoms it raises the bar, sets the precedent, however you want to say it... It just robs us of one more freedom and puts the power to take away more freedom from us in the hands of those with so much to gain from taking away our freedom. It's a slippery slope.
I know this whole thing is only supposed to be for fun, to see who on facebook is for the ban and who is against. But I'm not sorry for speaking up and trying to open people's eyes to the big picture anywhere I see an opportunity to do so.
Harasing me about my smoking...
may be hazardous to your health...:)
Seriously, I think this debate is the only honest way to go about the issue...
I DO have a right to smoke without being discriminated or having to go seriously out of my way to smoke, the exact SAME way that I believe non-smokers should have smoke-free areas...
How we divide areas into smoking or non-smoking? EASY: WE VOTE
I cast my ballot for smokers...
I noticed that the group against the ban is an open group while the group for the ban is closed. That doesn't sound like an even race to me....?
Not only was the BAN group a closed group and the NO BAN group an open group - It now appears that -
The NO BAN group has been REMOVED from facebook!!
Please tell me this is a mistake!
If not - This speaks volumes !!
Clearly the NO BAN group was far more successful than the instigator had expected and also the discussions were far more informative than the BAN group, despite the advantage of the closed/open groups.
Almost ALL the claims made by anti-smokers have now been discredited and I suppose that removing the topic altogether is the only way to prevent even further embarrassment to the anti-smoking groups. The anti-smokers are losing the argument, the initiative, and their 'joe public' supporters - fast!
I will let you into a little secret! - removing the topic will not work and cannot stop the gathering storm!
Of course the instigator may have been threatened by anti-smoking fanatics - which is quite easy to believe - knowing that they will stoop to any level to further their agenda and prevent the truth being told.
Lets face it. A lot of people like to smoke when they drink, So why can't we smoke in pubs. It should go back to the way it was before, A smokers section, and a non-smokers section. That way it would make everyone happy. Besides, everyone is going to die eventually, so you might as well die of something!
Post a Comment