Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Great Smoking Debate!


  • Please log in to reply
190 replies to this topic

#141 Jimmy_mac

Jimmy_mac

    Court Jester

  • Regulars
  • 1649 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 02:13 PM

Out of interest, does anyone actually have a decent summary of what is and is not going to be covered by this ban? Whilst allowing smoking in pubs is (especially regarding the length of this thread) certainly a contentious point, it would be interesting to see the views on both sides for and against smoking in other establishments. Are ciggies going to be banned from indoor (are there any other?) fruit machine arcades? Would it be banned in casinos, now that they are going to be open to the general public (I assume that they would currently be OK as they are effectively private menbers clubs)?


apparantly we will only be allowed to smoke in a specially built titanium hut measuring no more than 2mX1mX1m that must be situated in a specially dug out basement section of your home. Once inside you must hide yourself underneath aluminium foil and only expel the smoke at a 47 degree angle :D

#142 Magz

Magz

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • 887 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 03:13 PM

Sounds like fun - but seriously...

#143 jamesb99_1999

jamesb99_1999

    Designed Layabout

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2176 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 04:34 PM

But my ex has been made redundant recently and she has been having to apply for barwork because it's all that she can get to fit in with her kids. She has asthma as well, she has no choice unfortunately, as a lot of people don't.
J<br /><br /><br /><br />A man

#144 jamesb99_1999

jamesb99_1999

    Designed Layabout

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2176 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 04:41 PM

I heard them talking about this ventilation they have in some places abroad that just sucks everything in the air up and pumps it outside so that as soon as the smoke hits the air it is gone, it wouldn't even be an issue then would it?? Or if they built pubs on a hill so that one side was lower than the other, and they made cigarettes heavy tar again so that it floated downwards.. But then the beer would float downwards though which would mean the smokers got more beer.. Ermm that's no good - we should all get the same beer.. and they could also look up the non-smoker girls skirts --- no that ideas no good.

What about pubs giving away free patches, like they give drivers free soft drinks.. I don't know do patches work??

:p
J<br /><br /><br /><br />A man

#145 gary

gary

    Junior Member

  • New Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 06:30 PM

But my ex has been made redundant recently and she has been having to apply for barwork because it's all that she can get to fit in with her kids. She has asthma as well, she has no choice unfortunately, as a lot of people don't.


There are no other jobs in all this big wide world she can do ... wow thats an eye opener .. hey i need a cleaner.. there ya go her problems solved..arent i a nice kind smoker. :)

#146 Jimmy_mac

Jimmy_mac

    Court Jester

  • Regulars
  • 1649 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 06:34 PM

yip fairly sure supermarkets do some great flexitime hours too and they always recruiting.

#147 jamesb99_1999

jamesb99_1999

    Designed Layabout

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2176 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 07:46 PM

She has three young kids and doesn't drive. She has tried the two local supermarkets neither are employing, and believe me she must be desperate to try bars. Anyway I ain't getting at smokers - all my family smoke - They all wish they could give up too, but that's their choice.

I do feel segregation in pubs is an option, but the emotive nature of this subject leads to rows and I don't want to fall out with anyone, so take care all,

:)
J<br /><br /><br /><br />A man

#148 Jimmy_mac

Jimmy_mac

    Court Jester

  • Regulars
  • 1649 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 07:48 PM

see now thats the nice kind of reply i like, someone who is at least open to listen to possible options.

ok so options put forward so far have their flaws but am sure there can be others and ways to work it out

#149 Gazeyre1966

Gazeyre1966

    The furniture

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3001 posts

Posted 01 November 2005 - 08:54 PM

Interesting. Now it has all calmed down a little...it seems to have turned into an interesting debate...lol

I was going to make some points but I'm too drunk...Wonder how much damage that has done to me? I'll come back tomorrow. Take care all!!..Smoke, drink and be happy. ;)
<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 12px;'>It's all done in the best possible taste. :bigeyes04:</span></span>

#150 moneymad martian

moneymad martian

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 13 November 2005 - 09:32 PM

First off, where did I ever say that one evil excuses the other?
Get your facts straight before you start name calling, not that I expect anything other from the army these days, tried the paras out and one of my "olders" would have turned in his grave at the attitude shown by the corporal in charge, bullying sucks, but seems to be common place in the army, and also even in forums by ex army people by the looks of it.

Bullying is shouting someone down, incorrectly, without caring about the facts. I ask you again, where did I do what you acuse me of?

Secondly - Do you use a mobile phone?

I dont like mobiles, they have a fairly powerful radio transmitter in them, and the scientific community is undecided on the exact damage caused by them, but they do have a classification rating, proving some does happen.

I dont like mobiles being used next to me, should I demand a ban on them? Will you move outside to make a phone call? Not exactly a serious point, as its not something I am that bothered about, but its similar to passive smoking, as it could effect people......

Thirdly - the nazi reference was harsh, but I can see the link, hitler had views he wanted to impose on others, our government is doing the same thing. If they want to be taken seriously, then surely they should start with the biggest killers first? And they should consult the public. I did a search on google, and Im sure I found a poll that said only a small percentage of people actually wanted this ban.....

Fourthly - Mention is made of how many more people are affected, not dead.
Surely if more people die from cars, then surely MORE people will be affected from cars, than from passice smoking, that argument does not hold water.

Fifthly - There is no world war at the moment, and many of the people who were in the war joined up because they were either drafted, or because there was a genuine reason to do so at that point.

Six - Being overly abusive does not help a debate.

Seven - Whats wrong with non smoking areas in a pub?

eight - What comes next after a smoking ban? Once one thing gets through, its easier to implement more things - look at history, and how adolf got to power.....


As I started this debate, I guess I should contibute. I cannot agree enough to all the "passive smoking" debarcle that is prevalent, firstly name facts and figures please about the people we alledgedly "kill". No one can.

We can, by a distance, name and shame drivers who kill, cyclists who kill, racists who kill. Someone offer to me SCIENTIFIC PROOF that second hand smoke kills - you simply cannot. Because the proof does not exist.

Anyway, next time you drive your car, and plume all the hydrocarbons, the carbon dioxide, the lead and sulphur your car kicks out, and tell me I cannot smoke, I will simply laugh at you.

#151 Bencrest

Bencrest

    The furniture

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7446 posts

Posted 13 November 2005 - 10:39 PM

We can, by a distance, name and shame drivers who kill, cyclists who kill, racists who kill. Someone offer to me SCIENTIFIC PROOF that second hand smoke kills - you simply cannot. Because the proof does not exist.


There is more than enough proof that second hand smoke kills - are you living under a rock? Never heard of Roy Castle?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Roy_Castle

Anyway, I have nothing wrong with this debate, but what angers me is the totally idiotic and totally uneducated responses some people have.

For example - to insinuate that cigarette smoking is NOT harmful for either the smoker, or people passively inhaling smoke, is pathetic. It quite obviously IS harmful, although the extent to which it is I am not totally aware of.

So rather than saying that smoking is/isn't harmful (when it quite clearly is), try and stay on topic regarding the proposed banning of smoking in public places, pubs, restaurants, e.t.c.
Ben
 
Hopefully recovering from years of compulsive gambling and wanting to be gamble free forever.
 
Recommended reading - http://www.gamblersaloud.com/ (yes, I bought the book, very happy with it!)

#152 Jimmy_mac

Jimmy_mac

    Court Jester

  • Regulars
  • 1649 posts

Posted 13 November 2005 - 11:20 PM

how bout we just let this thread die, its been debated to its death, there has been evidence put forward on both sides to how passive smoking is and isnt harmful. None of it completely conclusive yet.

Lets not fire up the arguement again shall we

#153 gary

gary

    Junior Member

  • New Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 09:50 AM

Roy castle eh? ..1 man what about the others who played the same gigs with him..what about the others who played at the same places .. what about the non smokers who were in the audience...want to tell us what they are doing or are they all dead..funny how non smokers grab at any feeble straw when they cant prove or dont want to listen .. why arent you dead yet ben..you are a passive smoker arent you?.. you drink and you had a gambling addiction.. both cost lives (yes they do,suicide among gambling addicts is high,the worry and stress of getting into a massive debt causes a lot) gambling addicts also leave their kids and families short and like junkies steal,lie,cheat etc..drinking causes more deaths per year than smoking as well.. and since you named 1 man as a standard i will name 1 too..george best..wasted a liver from someone who could have used it for a better life, and still boozed it up..i think people like you should be banned from public places ben ... he he :p

#154 mrgspot

mrgspot

    Fancy It Ladies, Oh Yeah

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 660 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 10:00 AM

Roy castle eh? ..1 man what about the others who played the same gigs with him..what about the others who played at the same places .. what about the non smokers who were in the audience...want to tell us what they are doing or are they all dead..funny how non smokers grab at any feeble straw when they cant prove or dont want to listen .. why arent you dead yet ben..you are a passive smoker arent you?.. you drink and you had a gambling addiction.. both cost lives (yes they do,suicide among gambling addicts is high,the worry and stress of getting into a massive debt causes a lot) gambling addicts also leave their kids and families short and like junkies steal,lie,cheat etc..drinking causes more deaths per year than smoking as well.. and since you named 1 man as a standard i will name 1 too..george best..wasted a liver from someone who could have used it for a better life, and still boozed it up..i think people like you should be banned from public places ben ... he he :p


Obviously No One is listening to you Jimmy, ... Come on boys lets give it a rest, its gonna turn in to a ladies cat fight soon..
Posted Image

---------------------------------------------------

"Yippee Ki Ya Kimasabi"..

#155 Dr DX

Dr DX

    Daddy To A Little Angel

  • Layout Creator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1836 posts

Posted 14 November 2005 - 02:10 PM

Obviously No One is listening to you Jimmy, ... Come on boys lets give it a rest, its gonna turn in to a ladies cat fight soon..


sure they are big nagging women other wise they wud have let it die ages ago :D
Women are #@#@#@#s....

#156 Gazeyre1966

Gazeyre1966

    The furniture

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3001 posts

Posted 30 March 2006 - 11:37 PM

Well, the fascists have their way and we smokers were banned in public places as from 6am last Sunday. I've been out twice...On Wednesday, to a popular hotel and they had nothing in place for smokers outside...so I complained. The law states that there should be a designated smoking area outside. It wasn't there. They eventually put me outside with an ash tray. The attendance was well down. Secondly, I went out on the same night to the pub around the corner, normally thriving on a Wednesday night as they show football and have a quiz. Last night, normally 100 would have been there, there were 12, at it's busiest 20....5 of whom were smokers who had to leave and smoke in the street because they too haven't got a designated smoking area.

Well done you liberalites, well done for ruining just about every pub in my town. Well done for lying about the "supposed" non-smokers who would appear because they hated smokey atmospheres. Well done to those of you who, rather than believed in freedom of speech, opted for this pile of cack which will kill jobs, pubs and half of the catering industry.

Two points here, firstly....Don't let it happen in England...It is a nightmare. All the stats that the Scottish and Irish and American governments have trotted out are crap. It has been proved.

Secondly, it is illegal to smoke in an enclosed bus shelter whilst waiting for a bus. If anyone, ANYONE, dares to tell me to put my cigarette out whilst standing next to a filthy main road with cars pumping 20 times more pollutants than smokers into the atmosphere, I'm afraid they will feel the full weight of my fist in their boat race.

....Rant over.
<span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 12px;'>It's all done in the best possible taste. :bigeyes04:</span></span>

#157 fistandantilus

fistandantilus

    Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 199 posts

Posted 31 March 2006 - 08:51 AM

The law states that there should be a designated smoking area outside.


What do you expect exactly? The law states an area outside; it doesn't say there have to be facilities, why should a business spend extra for your habit. Don't worry in a few weeks you will be able to tell where the smokers area is, it'll be the corner that is littered with dog ends and when it rains you will be able to smell just how bad they actually smell as there is nothing worse then the smell of wet dog ends.

I for one am glad this ban is coming in and there is nothing liberal or fascist about it. It’s your habit and consequently it should be you that is inconvienenced. Leaving aside the health debate which smokers seem not to care about, hey if you don't care about your own lungs why would you worry about a strangers? I just wish smokers could realise how much smoke stinks.

#158 Magz

Magz

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • 887 posts

Posted 31 March 2006 - 11:12 AM

They never do until they give it up. You just don't notice the stench when you're still smoking. Smokers will eventually realise that this ban is just the start anyway. I think it'll eventually become illegal everywhere but within the smoker's own property - and even then only if there are no kids around.

The smokers that I know have been split roughly 50/50 on this issue. Half think that the ban will stop them going out to the pub, and half think it's good as it will help them to quit. The majority of smokers will eventually return to the pubs / restaurants etc (a few weeks sitting at home on their own with a couple of tinnies will see to that). There will be a few die hards (excuse the pun) that will not but that's their choice. Frankly, I care about them around the same as they care about my dry cleaning bill to remove their 2nd hand smoke from my clothes...

#159 nails

nails

    The furniture

  • Regulars
  • 4578 posts

Posted 31 March 2006 - 01:54 PM

i can understand smoking being a social thing. but lighting up first thing in the morning, 40 a day whatever is rediculous.

AND people who smoke dont realise how much they smell! ask a smoker to give a french kiss to a used ashtray and see how they like it.

Cancer is a nasty thing by any means, but smoking yourself to death in the knowledge that its harmfull and harmfull to others via passively smoking is just rude. Nobody deserves to get such a nasty disease, but youve been warned, and yet people who smoke all their life ask for help when they get it.

Ive worked in a betting environment for many years now, and it was with great enthusiasm when the stadium decided the restaurant will be non-smoking. i cant wait for the rest of ALL public places to go non-smoking and will laugh in their face of any such twat who goes out in the wind and rain for a pathetic puff.

whinge over (no im not off for a fag, you fag)

#160 nails

nails

    The furniture

  • Regulars
  • 4578 posts

Posted 31 March 2006 - 01:59 PM

We can, by a distance, name and shame drivers who kill, cyclists who kill, racists who kill. Someone offer to me SCIENTIFIC PROOF that second hand smoke kills - you simply cannot. Because the proof does not exist.

Anyway, next time you drive your car, and plume all the hydrocarbons, the carbon dioxide, the lead and sulphur your car kicks out, and tell me I cannot smoke, I will simply laugh at you.


what the hell is this martian on? your too high on your own methane and hydrogen deposits from mars.

if i was sharing a room for many years in close proximaty with a smoker, and i died of heart disease or blocked arteries... you do the rest of the math.

perhaps i should run you over, and then light up a cigar?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users