trojan Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Good post Baz. Lets not get away from the point that smoking may be a pleasure for some, but for the majority it is a filthy habit. Spitting is also a filthy habit that I see every day walking around the town centre,but it was quite rightly banned on buses years ago. Now I don't see many spitters amongst us demanding a spitting area at the back of a bus I don't agree that pubs will close down because of the smoking ban although they may put the price of beer up to compensate for any loss of earnings. The short term protest by smokers of taking their ball in will fizzle out because the smoking ban is here to stay like it or not just as pubs will always be here. The ban has little to do with Government this is a worldwide initiative on the advice of medical experts and common sense. I sometimes wonder about the logic of smokers who while free to ruin their own lives also insist on the right to ruin everyone elses :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 I used to smoke, and have never been one of those ex-smokers who condemn smokers. I believe that people have a choice in life. If they want to smoke they should be allowed to. Certain areas should be taboo, but as long as both lots know where they can and can't smoke and that everyone is aware of the problems, it should be allowed. I do find the argument about cancer etc a tad tiring. People die everyday from some problem and age doesn't enter into it. Seat belts? I hate them. I much prefer to drive without one. Shouldn't cars be designed so that they are not as powerful and cannot go so fast? By the way, the Government tend to do things to win votes. WHY else would they ban hunting? Most of them wouldn't know what a fox was? When they ban cars, will you be happy that there are no fumes? or will you see it as an infringement of your way of life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Baz That?s easy, I don?t call them anything. Calling people narrow minded simply because they don?t share your thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Not my thinking Bill, the thinking of a majority of people I would imagine. As has been said, "the taking the ball in mentality" Smoking is a filthy disgusting killer of a habit. It affects everyone who comes into contact with it and no matter how much the smoking fraternity may whinge and moan it won't be back in public places again!! This isn't a bandwagon thing it is happening all over the world now... even France of all places; the country where you can still take your poodle into a restaraunt has partially and will completely bring in a ban! The trouble with smokers is that they all say things like "well I wouldn't smoke if a non smoker was near me or if I were in a restaruant" etc etc but they all did thats why it got banned And as a final note, bear a thought for those who have no choice in the matter. About an hour ago I came back from B&Q and while sat at THOSE lights at Asda Westbrook waiting to turn right, I was sat behind a young lady in a 57 plate silver Fiesta. She was merrily sat puffing away on the cigarette with the window slightly open......... sat in the passenger seat? why her baby of course... not even a year old by the looks of it. Make fags a quid each and ban rolling tobbacco. Another addition to my party manifesto! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 trojan, just because you don't agree that some establishments will close mean it is not going to happen. How long will non smokers suffer the price increases before they also say " enough" Baz, why is that people who take a decision to change their social habits seem narrow minded, is it not people like yourself who have a closed mind? Baz, our post have crossed, I agree that smoking is antisocial behaviour and I too would be disgusted with the young baby scenario. But provision should be made for these 'lepers' since smoking is not itself banned. [ 12.01.2008, 15:39: Message edited by: Eagle ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Now you all know why I did not put this post on in the first place - this is a no win debate. All I say is if you choose to drink alcoholic beverages, there are consequences. If you choose to smoke cigarettes, there are consequences for that. If you choose to drive without a seat belt, there are consequences for this too. Why can't adults choose their own life? Do you live in a democracy or not? Do you live in a Nanny state or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Eagle... there is already a compromise, there are shelters and umbrellas outside that some landlords have chosen to install. There is no requirement to do so and so already the smokers have had a concession made towards them. Some (like the seven woods, have even had heaters fitted!) And Mary, Of course there is a winner... if everyone doesn't have to put up with the disgusting habit of smoking while they are out having a meal or a beer then personally I would say everyone is a winner.... If they banned guns in America... some kid somewhere wouldn't get shot...winner. If excessive drinking was banned, some poor defenceless kid or wife wouldn't get beaten... winner. Sometimes there has to be an element of nannying from the governments because people will not change on their own because they see it as their right to smoke, their right to carry guns, their right to drink and of course their right to affect everyone else in the process without giving a damn about it! and yes there are consequences to everything but unfortunately, the consequences are the baby in the car, the battered wife of the drunken man, the disgusting smell of my clothes when I went in a pub. You of all people living in the states should know the consequences of letting people have a choice; look how many kids get killed in America because one idiot with a gun wants to be famous. I think your government need to look at that issue first before worrying about what the rest of the civilized world smoking in a pub! Baz [ 12.01.2008, 16:34: Message edited by: BazJ ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Hi Mary I?m too full of winter bugs just now to argue the toss but just to say that I think your card game story say?s it all. Baz. Go and have a lie down you need it. [ 12.01.2008, 16:32: Message edited by: Bill ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 I think I need a cigarette after all that Bill! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Having curbed smokers from "going out"; where are all these non-smokers who were gagging to visit pubs/clubs, but couldn't stand the smoke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Thank you Bill. Take care of yourself - lots of water and rest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trojan Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Originally posted by Mary: All I say is if you choose to drink alcoholic beverages, there are consequences. If you choose to smoke cigarettes, there are consequences for that. If you choose to drive without a seat belt, there are consequences for this too. The problem is Mary that if someone goes to a pub every night and sinks 10 pints the consequences in the majority of cases are his/her own. If someone refuses to wear a seat belt and is involved in a crash then again in the majority of cases it will be that person who has to accept the consequences. Wherehas if someone lights up in a public place everyone suffers the consequences. The anti smoking brigade may be being petty and small minded but smokers in many cases are being totally selfish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 As I said before and for the last time - if the business says - Smoking Establishment then the non smoker has a choice. But this is a futile conversation. Yes, I know smoking is not good for a person - as so many other things are not, but it is legal and if your an adult, should you not be treated as an adult? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Originally posted by trojan: Originally posted by Mary: All I say is if you choose to drink alcoholic beverages, there are consequences. If you choose to smoke cigarettes, there are consequences for that. If you choose to drive without a seat belt, there are consequences for this too. The problem is Mary that if someone goes to a pub every night and sinks 10 pints the consequences in the majority of cases are his/her own. If someone refuses to wear a seat belt and is involved in a crash then again in the majority of cases it will be that person who has to accept the consequences. Wherehas if someone lights up in a public place everyone suffers the consequences. The anti smoking brigade may be being petty and small minded but smokers in many cases are being totally selfish. Spot on trojan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 I don't know where Baz and Trojan get the idea that a majority of the population wanted the smoking ban in pubs (or a ban on fox hunting for that matter). It would seem that not even the majority of non smokers on this forum support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Student Geoff Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 I support the ban on both. I've now started going back to pubs and it's a great change. [ 12.01.2008, 20:37: Message edited by: Student Geoff ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 I think the 'majority' bit was a reference to non smokers v smokers not to non smokers who wanted the ban I agree with Geoff in supporting the ban on smoking and fox hunting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 I have no problems at all with the smoking ban. Pubs, shopping centres etc etc have a much nicer and cleaner atmoshphere now (although some pubs do seem somewhat quieter). And people should never have been allowed to smoke in restaurants and other similar areas especially those where children are ... Why should a person who has the sense not to smoke have to be expected to breath in a smokers second hand fumes and go home stinking of cigarette smoke Oh and by the way I do smoke and have done for many years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Dismayed, But as a smoker, you should also have a bar where you can go for a drink and "Smoke" if you want to. These saints that are anti-smokers don't want you to have the choice. As for fox hunting, how many have actually been fox hunting to enable them to have an opinion? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 True Peter... but problem is most smokers can't actually smell smoke... Bit like someone who has really bad breath or BO... they can't smell it but others can As for fox hunting.. never done it and would never want to but my cousin took it up as a 'sport' and we had endless arguments about it! It's completely barbaric !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 ... wonder how many of these non-smokers, share their germs with everyone else, by sneezing in public?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 Originally posted by Dismayed: As for fox hunting.. never done it and would never want to but my cousin took it up as a 'sport' and we had endless arguments about it! It's completely barbaric !! [/QB] At the end of the day, it's about emotion. It's amazing how your views and emotions change as you go through the years. Isn't life barbaric? Isn't it barbaric to farm cows,pigs and sheep? Hens, turkeys geese? Fish? The thing is, there is not a lot of difference between slaughtering any of these. Just because some see fox-hunting as a country sport (conveniently forgetting the reason behind it)it is still slaughter. So to ban cruelty altogether, what do people suggest we eat? Grass? I watched a Jamie Oliver prog last night about chickens/hens. i was amused as I watched the faces of the audience when they realised how their eggs and chickens reached the table. The disappointing thing for me, was the way the farmers were working for a pittance. This should really be another topic, but when you consider how the population is expanding so rapidly, and that this population needs feeding, how is this supposed to happen. Can people be fed by keeping a few chickens down the garden, or is mass production the only way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Originally posted by observer: ... wonder how many of these non-smokers, share their germs with everyone else, by sneezing in public?! What a totally stupid comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Originally posted by Peter: Dismayed, But as a smoker, you should also have a bar where you can go for a drink and "Smoke" if you want to. So why can't I have a stretch of road where I can floor my Cosworth and drive at 140 mph? Why not have an area where I can get paralytic drunk and then drive home? because it has been deemed to be not safe. This smoking ban has been brought in to make everyones life cleaner and safer. If smokers can get on a plane and travel to Teneriffe for 4 hours or Florida for almost 8 hours I believe and not smoke (but they can have a drink) why can't they go for a pint in a pub and not smoke inside? At least they can nip outside for one; unlike at 30,000 feet when it may cause a bit more inconvenience. There are loads of other instances where smokers can't smoke for long periods but it hasn't meant the end of the package holiday has it? Remember when you could get on a Dan Air plane at Manchester and smoke all the way to Spain? When that stopped, we didn't have droves of smokers boycotting the airports did we? Maybe we should have smoking and no smoking trains and planes and buses. Wonder how much that would add to a ticket? This really is like the taking the ball in scenario mentioned earlier. There is no difficulty in nipping outside for a fag and no one will convince me otherwise I'm afraid. I am not a saint Peter by any stretch of the imagination but where this is concerned I do feel it is a good thing. Most non-smokers now will say "oh I was never really bothered about people smoking in pubs near me" but when you mention the fact that if you didn't smoke you went home stinking like you did, they usually say "ah yes, thats true!" And most smokers would say "Well I never smoked when there were kids or non-smokers around" or "I never smoked in restaraunts".... Well some bugger did or we wouldn't have the ban would we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Originally posted by wolfie: Originally posted by observer: ... wonder how many of these non-smokers, share their germs with everyone else, by sneezing in public?! What a totally stupid comment. Ditto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.