Twozzok Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Has anyone got a link that explains what the ban encompasses?
Bren Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 found a pro-smoking website. http://www.forestonline.org "What about the rights of non-smokers to breathe clean air? We always urge smokers to be mindful of those around them but, let's be honest, the anti-smoking brigade is a bit precious at times. For heaven's sake, most of us live and work in an urban environment full of car fumes and other chemicals so why make such a fuss about a little bit of tobacco smoke that is massively diluted in the surrounding air? In the real world we all have our likes and dislikes and we therefore have to be tolerant of other people's habits, one of which is smoking. So you accept restrictions on smoking? Of course. We understand the desire for restrictions on smoking in many public places - theatres, cinemas, shopping malls and public transport, for example. And because we believe in choice (for smokers and non-smokers) we support more smoke free areas in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Nevertheless we resisted calls for a complete ban because we believe that, with the help of technology (improved ventilation, for example), prohibition is completely unnecessary. The simple truth is, it is quite possible to accommodate smokers without inconveniencing non-smokers. Where private businesses are concerned (and that includes pubs and restaurants), we think it's up to the owner to devise a policy on smoking that best suits his business. It has nothing to do with politicians or, God bless 'em, anti-smoking busybodies." ------------ not my point of view, but still, thought id throw it out their for you all to argue about for another 5 pages
rokhed00 Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 Has anyone got a link that explains what the ban encompasses? Enclosed public places apparently, most of which are already non smoking areas anyway, the only new places that will be affected are pubs, clubs and some restaurants.
Twozzok Posted June 5, 2007 Posted June 5, 2007 So whats all this about open air train stations? EDIT: Also, I think it should be up to the pub owners discretion wether they allow smoking or not. It's part of the whole pub atmosphere
4q2 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 So whats all this about open air train stations? EDIT: Also, I think it should be up to the pub owners discretion wether they allow smoking or not. It's part of the whole pub atmosphere Its down to whoever owns the interchange/pub...They can do it if they want and I think they enforce it as the same conglomerate tend to own these places. At the most they can probably attempt to have their private security / Transport police bar you, but in a court it would be a nice test case to see if a proceeding would state that a person has no right to travel. Pubs....Fair play, the workers are really the ones at risk here and in all honesty its sorta like a prostitute stating they shouldnt have to work in a place where people have stds or a bird farm worker stating that they should only work in a place where bird flu isnt a present risk. As it stands looking at the true risk point of second hand smoke you are at the highest risk if you live in a household of smokers unless you are constantly in a place that exposes you to smoke inhalation. The workplace and every other relavant enclosed place has already banned it, which leaves drinking establishments. If it is an occasional visit to the pub/club you will not really figure in the passive smoking statistics...if you are frequently sat in the pub then you most likely drink way too much and therefore should stop whining about the effects of substances on a social level and healthcare level or you are most likely unemployed spongeing off the state anyway with a higher risk of using NHS treatment (As per some other research program that stated Britains lower classes are more open to early death / chronic illness). Etc...Etc.... Be happy, if you are a lifestyle Nazi you have got your wish on another human right, leaving someone else to start on something else (ie replica swords, mobile phones, wifi, electricity sub stations, personal transport, whatever).
Charlie Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 we think it's up to the owner to devise a policy on smoking that best suits his business. It has nothing to do with politicians or, God bless 'em, anti-smoking busybodies. Obviously he's talking about pubs here and if he had his way obviously the pubs would stay as smoking places. It's not only the breathing in the smoke that's the bad thing, it makes your clothes stink as well. Before the ban you couldn't go into a pub or club and then use the same clothes again without washing them as they would absolutely stink.
Atomic Boo Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Good luck to the British economy if every smoker left the country. Wouldnt it be exactly the same if every non smoker left? Okay a lot of money goes into government from smokers but im sure they have ample enough money anyway. There are always easy solutions around things so I dont think taxes would increase, otherwise a civil wa would break out!
UK Posted June 6, 2007 Author Posted June 6, 2007 Wouldnt it be exactly the same if every non smoker left? Okay a lot of money goes into government from smokers but im sure they have ample enough money anyway. There are always easy solutions around things so I dont think taxes would increase, otherwise a civil wa would break out! Everything- to the slave trade too the cold war has benefitted the UK in economy. The fact that smokers wanna keep up smoking, and their only excuse is 'government money' makes me quite worried. I'm doubt that the 4th richest country, with a thriving economy made from financial services, pharmaceuticals, defense industries and tourism will suddenly become poor because of no smokers.
jayseven Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 So whats all this about open air train stations? Its down to whoever owns the interchange/pub...They can do it if they want and I think they enforce it as the same conglomerate tend to own these places. At the most they can probably attempt to have their private security / Transport police bar you, but in a court it would be a nice test case to see if a proceeding would state that a person has no right to travel. As far as I can tell, smoking is now banned on all stations accross the country, even the open air ones - Which I find ridiculous. In Sydney I observed a similar smoking ban to what we have here, except I think it was more optional - I don't remember. But anyway, stations tehre were smoke-free areas, except for 'designated' parts at the ends of teh platforms behind the "DONT BE SMOKING BIATCH" signs. A lot of pubs around my place in sheffield are proudly presenting their roofed (or slightly covered) beer gardens. Sounds cool to me, a fair alternative - 'till the non smokers complain tehy can't sit outside and enjoy the fresh air. One main thing that I think will happen is that when I go to the pub, it's usually with another smoker and a non-smoker. When we want a fag, we will have to go outside - but should we leave one chap behind or take the whole party and risk losing our seats?
rokhed00 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Everything- to the slave trade too the cold war has benefitted the UK in economy. The fact that smokers wanna keep up smoking, and their only excuse is 'government money' makes me quite worried. I'm doubt that the 4th richest country, with a thriving economy made from financial services, pharmaceuticals, defense industries and tourism will suddenly become poor because of no smokers. I don't see anybody here using the excuse that the government make shed loads of cash from tobacco as an excuse to not give up smoking. And I really doubt that tobacco costs the government more than it makes from it, otherwise they'd just ban it outright, surely. I really don't think the prosperity of private industry has got anything to do with it either, except that plenty of people in the government are involved with it and get to line their own personal pockets. If there were no smokers the government would have to increase other taxes, which means less money for everyone, less money means less spending, less spending means a decline in the economy. Sure there would still be plenty of money coming in to the country through private industry, but that goes to a select minority and really doesn't help the overall economy much at all.
4q2 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 As far as I can tell, smoking is now banned on all stations accross the country, even the open air ones - Which I find ridiculous. I can confirm that is not the case atm (or as recent as Sunday)... Leeds Central doesnt operate a smoking ban in the open air or the closed front. The nearest place in there other than the shops is the Wetherspoons pub. Also my local interchange are not operating the ban either on the open platform.
UK Posted June 6, 2007 Author Posted June 6, 2007 I don't see anybody here using the excuse that the government make shed loads of cash from tobacco as an excuse to not give up smoking. And I really doubt that tobacco costs the government more than it makes from it, otherwise they'd just ban it outright, surely. I really don't think the prosperity of private industry has got anything to do with it either, except that plenty of people in the government are involved with it and get to line their own personal pockets. If there were no smokers the government would have to increase other taxes, which means less money for everyone, less money means less spending, less spending means a decline in the economy. Sure there would still be plenty of money coming in to the country through private industry, but that goes to a select minority and really doesn't help the overall economy much at all. If raised taxes meant less deaths, go for it.
Bren Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 If raised taxes meant less deaths, go for it. fuck that, their choosing to smoke, their the fools so why should i be out of pocket for it.
Atomic Boo Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 We're saying that the country would be fine if smokers left because it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world and wouldn't badly suffer from smokers leaving. It makes them money but as England said: 'i doubt that england, with a thriving economy made from financial services, pharmaceuticals, defense industries and tourism will suddenly become poor because of no smokers.' it wouldn't go to select minorities, why would it? its government money, they do what they wish with it. and to say that they'd ban smoking if they didnt make profit is ridiculous. you know what would happen if they did that right?
UK Posted June 6, 2007 Author Posted June 6, 2007 fuck that, their choosing to smoke, their the fools so why should i be out of pocket for it. I could've sworn you smoked. And it isn't just them whose health is damaged, is it?
4q2 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 I could've sworn you smoked. And it isn't just them whose health is damaged, is it? Whose health is damaged ? Passive smoking guesstimates are neither fact or proven especially in open air.
Slaggis Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 I could've sworn you smoked. And it isn't just them whose health is damaged, is it? exactly...all people who don't smoke know its bad for people who do it, and for them if there's people around them that smoke. Smokers no its bad for them but they carry on, even though they know its bad for people around them, I don't get it
4q2 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 exactly...all people who don't smoke know its bad for people who do it, and for them if there's people around them that smoke. Smokers no its bad for them but they carry on, even though they know its bad for people around them, I don't get it But not every smoker is so inconsiderate to expose everyone around them, and if thats the case it is just one more right being removed. Of course I understand that smoking is an action that damages my health and when the law comes in on July the 1st I will be making a concious effort to stop smoking and will not be smoking in any enclosed area other than my own...BUT: The whole thing is going too far to stop people who want to smoke in their own space or in the open air. There are far bigger pollutants to help kill you at that point. I dont need someone to care about my wellbeing and I certainly have paid my dues to the NHS in NI and smokers tax to deserve any treatment. As much as anyone who gets into a brawl / injured on a Friday night after a good piss up, or anyone who writes their car off whilst behind the wheel.
rokhed00 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 We're saying that the country would be fine if smokers left because it's one of the wealthiest countries in the world and wouldn't badly suffer from smokers leaving. It makes them money but as England said:'i doubt that england, with a thriving economy made from financial services, pharmaceuticals, defense industries and tourism will suddenly become poor because of no smokers.' it wouldn't go to select minorities, why would it? its government money, they do what they wish with it. I'm sorry, I must've imagined the privatization of practically every national industry, my bad, all the money must go to the government rather than all those fat cats (a good few of them in the government) that the newspapers I must've imagined report it all going to.
rokhed00 Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Out of interest, which paper do you read, Rokhed? I don't, it was all my imagination.
mariosmentor Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Well, I'm a smoker and I live in Scotland where the ban has been in effect for quite awhile. I do not mind the ban at all. I understand that non-smokers do not want to be in enclosed areas breathing in smoke, and do not mind going outside for a puff and in a manner of speaking I quite enjoy going out in the fresh air to take a break. However there seems to be alot of extreme anti-smokers here. Someone mentioned smoking outside is still detrimental to peoples health. Are you talking about the same place I am? Outside? Where there are car, buses, lorries, etc? Fumes from these machines amounts to more harmful damage to yourself than a little passive smoke outside could ever do. Smoking you can avoid but car fumes and pollution are an unavoidable part of life. So if you are so adamant it seems that smoking should be banned everywhere except in ones own household then are you going to accuse people who drive of manslaughter? Are you going to force them to drive on country roads miles away from you to protect your health? I know it's bad for me the same way I know a boozing session or a nice fry up is bad for me. But it is my right to pollute my own body in anyway I wish, and no neo fascist, control freaks are going to force me to stop.
Zechs Merquise Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Obviously he's talking about pubs here and if he had his way obviously the pubs would stay as smoking places. It's not only the breathing in the smoke that's the bad thing, it makes your clothes stink as well. Before the ban you couldn't go into a pub or club and then use the same clothes again without washing them as they would absolutely stink. Well said, smoking is completely degenerate, the smoke not only gets in your lungs, but ruins your clothes, gets in your hair and people who smoke in restaurants are vermin in my eyes.
somme Posted June 6, 2007 Posted June 6, 2007 Well said, smoking is completely degenerate, the smoke not only gets in your lungs, but ruins your clothes, gets in your hair and people who smoke in restaurants are vermin in my eyes. If it was a restaurant where smoking was allowed you should have gone somewhere else.
Recommended Posts