Wanna live longer? Stop other people smoking!!

[AccyD]

that_punk_guy wrote:
The businesses won't be "unviable." That's just scare-mongering spread by smokers. I've heard smokers belly-laughing when student bars have gone non-smoking and lost some custom. It's pathetic.

I agree the laughing may be pathetic but it proves the point that going non-smoking will cause enough these places to close. If you feel that strongly about your point only visit non-smoking pubs - the owners will get wise quickly enough.

At the moment, non-smokers are forced to go to bars and breathe smoke. If a ban is passed, smokers will be forced to go into bars and breathe clean air.

Wrong, I will simply stop visiting those pubs that ban smoking, or drink at home if it is a universal ban. I simply accept the view that if there is an environment I dislike, then I will avoid it.

And unless you're working for image-Nazis like McDonald's, you're going to find that almost all of these "non-skilled" jobs are with employers who do not have a smoking policy.

We are assuming here that enough pubs remain open that there are jobs worth fighting for.

But to address your point, most businesses these days have stopped smoking indoors for insurance purposes (rather than health reasons), so being near smokers should have become less of an issue except in the lesiure industry - hardly a large sector of the economy.

[that_punk_guy]

AccyD wrote:

that_punk_guy wrote:
The businesses won't be "unviable." That's just scare-mongering spread by smokers. I've heard smokers belly-laughing when student bars have gone non-smoking and lost some custom. It's pathetic.

I agree the laughing may be pathetic but it proves the point that going non-smoking will cause enough these places to close. If you feel that strongly about your point only visit non-smoking pubs - the owners will get wise quickly enough.

But the bar in question wasn't about to close. You seem to keep confusing loss of custom with bankruptcy.

At the moment, non-smokers are forced to go to bars and breathe smoke. If a ban is passed, smokers will be forced to go into bars and breathe clean air.

Wrong, I will simply stop visiting those pubs that ban smoking, or drink at home if it is a universal ban. I simply accept the view that if there is an environment I dislike, then I will avoid it.

As do I. But that's just you and I. There are many smokers who will still visit non-smoking bars, just as there are non-smokers who visit smoking bars now. The ban still benefits those who still want to go out for a drink.

And unless you're working for image-Nazis like McDonald's, you're going to find that almost all of these "non-skilled" jobs are with employers who do not have a smoking policy.

We are assuming here that enough pubs remain open that there are jobs worth fighting for.

See above.

But to address your point, most businesses these days have stopped smoking indoors for insurance purposes (rather than health reasons), so being near smokers should have become less of an issue except in the lesiure industry - hardly a large sector of the economy.

A sector of the economy that remains one of the easiest ways for non-skilled workers to get a job and therefore often the last hope for some people.

As a side-note, I've been to three factories in the past couple of months and people were smoking in all of them. One is a cosmetics (mostly shampoos and shower gels) manufacturer, one a woolen textile mill and the other a water jet cutting installation.

Granted, it's hardly a mass survey, but it doesn't really support your above claim.

[mdwh2]

KennyR wrote:

AccyD wrote:
But doing nothing about the pollution from cars?? Double standards??

The pollution of cars has no bearing here. It's a necessary evil - although we can tax needless drivers and more polluting cars off the road. Smoking is not necessary. It doesn't transport people. It doesn't keep Britain moving. And the taxes it generates could come from something else just as easily.

But cars aren't always necessary - and in fact, I'd say that the majority isn't necessary.

So should we ban using cars for any leisure purposes, or for short distances that can be walked? Also, even if cars are being used for business purposes (either directly, or someone travelling to work), it's only necessary if that business purpose itself is necessary. Really, the only transport that is necessary is that involved in transporting food, or other basic needs. For all other parts of the economy, it's a matter of opinion how worthy they are.

(Just to clarify - I'm not saying that banning smoking indoors should be comparable to banning cars, but the original point here talked about the health risks from smoking outdoors).

Government vs. capital, government wins. Which is how it should be. I'm damn sure I never voted for any investors.

I don't see that you should have some automatic right to a say in how someone runs their own pub.

Personally I think  it would be better to aim for a mix of smoking and non-smoking pubs, rather than an outright ban. If this is not going to be achieved naturally in a free market, then there are various ways of doing it: Eg, making it so that places need a licence to allow smoking, and handing out only a limited number, or having tax incentives for non-smoking pubs.

[iamaboringperson]

Hasn't this turnded into an anti-capitalism thread!

People won't open clean bars/pubs because they're scared of losing the custom. That's what the free market's doing for us there.

Actually, it's not.

When did YOU decide to try opening a smoke free bar?

And you still aren't considering the person who had no choice but to take a job at a bar.

That's not CAPITALISM that supports that. Tell you what it is though ... no, you can guess ... it also starts with 'C'

Also, if you're going to kill people for the sake of the economy, hell, let's round up certain demographics and have a holocaust! Much more efficient.

Very typical of an anti-capitalism rant.  Try to compare it to the {bleep} that happenned in NAZI Germany!

How does killing people make an ecconomy a better version of Capitalism?  Which proponents of capitalism have ever supported such nonsense? :pissed:

This is an irrational behaviour but the "free market" we know today would collapse if humans behaved rationally.

So what's YOUR definition of 'rational behaviour' ?

Every technology, and all human progress in the modern world was built on rational behaviour, and the places that were the most rational (with the best form of capitalism) became the most successful.

At the moment, non-smokers are forced to go to bars and breathe smoke.

Have I missed something here?

In which country is that?I'm a non smoker, and I've never been forced into a bar! Bizare!

If a ban is passed, smokers will be forced to go into bars and breathe clean air.

So, according what you're basically saying, a ban on smoking could potentially stimulate the ecconomy !! :lol: (Still, I think it's a bit immoral though, and is definently not Capitalism)

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why that benefits us all.

Clear as mud.

And unless you're working for image-Nazis like McDonald's,

So 'McDonalds' are the 'image-Nazis' now.

"Boo for capitalism. Filthy capitalist pigs!!"
"PIIIIIGS! ANARCHY RULES!!!"

I don't see that you should have some automatic right to a say in how someone runs their own pub.

Exactly.  Only under Communism does the government dictate what people may do with assets (or any other property for that matter).  If somebody else is running the pub by force, is it really yours?


The fact is that non-smokers have a choice, nobody is poking a gun to their backs and forcing them to go into a smokey room.

When there is demand for a smoke free pub, such a thing will open.  But currently, there is a place that accomodates those people who smoke & drink while they socialise. And that can only be a good thing.

[smithy]

Personally I quite enjoy having a cigarette when after I've gotten completely drunk.   It looks cool too.  I know it's bad for me, but I probably only smoke 1-2 cigarettes a week.  It's no worse than wandering around an average smoggy British city.

I am not a 5-year old, I don't need this authoritarian British government telling me I can't harm my own health.  And don't give me that crap about the NHS has to pay for it - smokers have already paid their for their own treatment many times over thanks to the taxes levied on ciggies.

I noticed with interest that in New York, where they banned smoking in bars, that it caused sales at pubs and bars to be reduced massively.  Some bars were having lock-ins to allow smokers to exercise their civil liberties.  And don't give me any crap about non-smokers' civil liberties - even in Britain there are loads of non-smoking bars, and practically every pub has a non-smoking section.  What's that?  You want to drink in a smoking-only pub?  Or you want to sit in the smoking section?  That's as ridiculous as saying you want to have a picnic on the M6.  Grow up you woolie liberals and stop trying to foist your perfect ways on the rest of us.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

*cough* *cough*
my last *cough* wish: a ciggy... *COUGH*

[that_punk_guy]

iamaboringperson wrote:
Hasn't this turnded into an anti-capitalism thread!

...no?

When did YOU decide to try opening a smoke free bar?

Why would I go out of my way to surround myself with drunks?

And you still aren't considering the person who had no choice but to take a job at a bar.

That's not CAPITALISM that supports that. Tell you what it is though ... no, you can guess ... it also starts with 'C'

Communism? :lol:

:roll:

Very typical of an anti-capitalism rant.  Try to compare it to the {bleep} that happenned in NAZI Germany!

I don't recall making a direct comparison. I think it's fairly obvious that I was taking the "argument" to its logical conclusion.

I hereby apologise to those of you who genuinely thought I believe all smokers are in league with Hitler. Whatever.

How does killing people make an ecconomy a better version of Capitalism?  Which proponents of capitalism have ever supported such nonsense? :pissed:

Every other f**king week I hear some right-winger talking about sterilizing benefit spongers.

I'm a non smoker, and I've never been forced into a bar! Bizare!

Why is it my 12-year-old step-neice understands complex language constructs such as metaphors and similies, but you can not?

If a ban is passed, smokers will be forced to go into bars and breathe clean air.

So, according what you're basically saying, a ban on smoking could potentially stimulate the ecconomy !! :lol: (Still, I think it's a bit immoral though, and is definently not Capitalism)

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why that benefits us all.

Clear as mud.

If you're not breathing smoke, you're a healthier person. C'mon, you're acting like you're in pre-school here.

So 'McDonalds' are the 'image-Nazis' now.

"Boo for capitalism. Filthy capitalist pigs!!"
"PIIIIIGS! ANARCHY RULES!!!"

They are utterly obsessed with their own image. Even you should be able to discern that.

By the way... do you have any idea what you're talking about?

"HIPPIES! YOU'RE ALL QUEER FAGS!!!"

:roll:

The fact is that non-smokers have a choice, nobody is poking a gun to their backs and forcing them to go into a smokey room.

So... should I leave the bus-stop and miss my bus if you decide to smoke next to me? I think we dealt with this part of your argument a couple of pages back.

When there is demand for a smoke free pub, such a thing will open.  But currently, there is a place that accomodates those people who smoke & drink while they socialise. And that can only be a good thing.

For people who smoke and drink, one assumes. They're the only people that matter anyway.

[that_punk_guy]

smithy wrote:
Personally I quite enjoy having a cigarette when after I've gotten completely drunk. It looks cool too.

It looks bloody stupid.

I know it's bad for me, but I probably only smoke 1-2 cigarettes a week.  It's no worse than wandering around an average smoggy British city.

Now you're walking around two average smoggy British cities. Good one.

Grow up you woolie liberals and stop trying to foist your perfect ways on the rest of us.

Yawn.

[mdwh2]

Also, if you're going to kill people for the sake of the economy, hell, let's round up certain demographics and have a holocaust! Much more efficient.

Invalid analogy - people aren't being killed by smoke against their will.

The problem here is that the free market generally does a bad job at providing smoke-free pubs - *not* that people are being force against their will into smoky pubs.

[smithy]

smithy wrote:
Personally I quite enjoy having a cigarette when after I've gotten completely drunk. It looks cool too.

It looks bloody stupid.

This is what they try to drum into people to try to make them not start.  But the simple fact is that it looks well cool.

[smithy]

smithy wrote:
Personally I quite enjoy having a cigarette when after I've gotten completely drunk. It looks cool too.

It looks bloody stupid.

This is what they try to drum into people to try to make them not start.  But the simple fact is that it looks well cool.

[KennyR]

Smithy wrote:
But the simple fact is that it looks well cool.

So does riding a motorbike at 110mph without a helmet.

Looks cool? You must be kidding. Smokers have dull eyes, lifeless hair, bad skin, and yellow teeth. They hawk up big chunks of thick phlegm and spit and cough all the time. They smell bad. If that's cool, I think I should catch the Black Death. Those festering black buboes would be more impressive to the "smoking is well cool" crowd.

People who smoke just to conform are weak minded. That's why I'd expect it of teenagers, not grown men.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
Looks cool? You must be kidding. Smokers have dull eyes, lifeless hair, bad skin, and yellow teeth. They hawk up big chunks of thick phlegm and spit and cough all the time. They smell bad. If that's cool, I think I should catch the Black Death. Those festering black buboes would be more impressive to the "smoking is well cool" crowd.

:lol:
how true
one of the main reasons why I stopped smoking cigarettes -at the age of 15-



:nervous: