Wanna live longer? Stop other people smoking!!

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:
But what about walking down the street. I have no choice but to "enjoy" the experience of another persons addiction.

What say you?

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

Does everyone want to ban the car??

[bloodline]

AccyD wrote:

bloodline wrote:
But what about walking down the street. I have no choice but to "enjoy" the experience of another persons addiction.

What say you?

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

Does everyone want to ban the car??

Deflection!

[graffias79]

Hey I quit smoking using the patch.  If I can do it, anyone can!  I haven't smoked since November 16th.  Unfortunately one of the undesirable side effects of quitting smoking is usually weight gain.  So after I'm sure I'm comfortable without my cigarettes I can start on a diet.  Now that's what will kill me! ;-)

-Jamie

[KennyR]

@AccyD

The issue here is that, whether you enjoy smoking or not, you've doomed yourself to an early grave and have a fair probability of dying in shocking, lingering pain. I tell you that for your own good. By banning public smoking, the government make sure you don't pass this deathwish onto people who didn't have the choice.

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

The pollution levels in the average club or pub are so high, if it was a workplace youd'd be forced to wear protective equipment. Otherwise you could sue your company.

[AccyD]

bloodline wrote:

AccyD wrote:

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

Does everyone want to ban the car??

Deflection!

I would hardly call this deflection, if you are wanting to improve your health then you cannot look solely at the things that you gain no benefit from (i.e. cigarettes), and ignore other items which you personally benefit from, but which in the future prove more of an issue than tobacco smoking.

You cannot ban one without the other as they both have the same polluting effects.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
@AccyD

The issue here is that, whether you enjoy smoking or not, you've doomed yourself to an early grave and have a fair probability of dying in shocking, lingering pain. I tell you that for your own good.

Firstly, thank you for your concern.

However, I understand the risks but choose to continue smoking due to the enjoyment of the experience. With all due respect, I do not advise you what to do to yourself, and I accept that you may make choices which I do not agree with, but you must be allowed to make those choices.

As long as people have all of the information availiable to them, these choices should be allowed to made, otherwise what type of people has our society raised if they are not allowed to make their own decisions??

KennyR wrote:
By banning public smoking, the government make sure you don't pass this deathwish onto people who didn't have the choice.

But people do have a choice. If you do not wish to sit in a pub where smoking is allowed, there are not policemen at the door forcing you to stay, you can go and find another where smoking is banned. Similarly, if you do not wish to work in a smoking environment then you are free to leave.

KennyR wrote:

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

The pollution levels in the average club or pub are so high, if it was a workplace youd'd be forced to wear protective equipment. Otherwise you could sue your company.

The compensation culture has gone mad these days, no one forces anyone in these industries to work in the environment, it is a matter of choice. Again if the problem was so bad, people would refuse to work in these environments and thus smoking would be banned "informally" by the pub owners or wages would rise to compensate, (neither of which has happened) - it is not the governments place to intervene. Given that most pubs do not have an issue in recruiting staff I would say that the vast majority of employees do not see this as a problem.

[KennyR]

AccyD wrote:
As long as people have all of the information availiable to them, these choices should be allowed to made, otherwise what type of people has our society raised if they are not allowed to make their own decisions??

Yes, and that's why they're banning smoking in public places - allowing people to make their own decisions.

But people do have a choice. If you do not wish to sit in a pub where smoking is allowed, there are not policemen at the door forcing you to stay, you can go and find another where smoking is banned. Similarly, if you do not wish to work in a smoking environment then you are free to leave.

Supposing they want to sit in that pub, but without the smoke? Smokers are taking away their choice to do that. That would usually be just a case of compromise, settling on whatever is best for both parties. But the health aspect makes compromise impossible. Smokers kill themselves, and they also kill non-smokers. The government, as democratically elected representatives of the people, have a duty to prevent both, especially the latter.

The compensation culture has gone mad these days, no one forces anyone in these industries to work in the environment, it is a matter of choice.

This has nothing to do with the compensation culture. It has everything to do with the unions trying to prevent new waves of asbestosis. I'm afraid when it comes to work safety, it is NOT in the hands of the employee to choose how they work, for many reasons. One is that they become a liability to others. Therefore, if anyone feels like taking risks, they can do it in the job queue. The world has moved on from the days of profiteering from endangering the workforce, and making them believe they're doing it of their own free will. They never were. And that's why it was changed. Now this is being extended socially.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
Yes, and that's why they're banning smoking in public places - allowing people to make their own decisions.

But doing nothing about the pollution from cars?? Double standards??

Supposing they want to sit in that pub, but without the smoke? Smokers are taking away their choice to do that.

As far as I am aware I do not force landlords to operate a smoking or non-smoking policy, that is not the preserve of anyone regardless of their attitude to smoking. The person who owns the pub makes that choice - they will make the decision based upon their estimate of the best way to maximise profits, if they view keeping smokers custom to be better than losing non-smokers then it is their business and they should be allowed to do as they wish.

The point I am trying to make is that if MOST people were against smoking then a ban would be pointless as the market would ensure that smoking pubs closed because no one visited them. Since this policy (in terms of the market making the best decision) is in place at present we must conclude that the vast majority of people do not mind the issue of smoking.

This has nothing to do with the compensation culture. It has everything to do with the unions trying to prevent new waves of asbestosis.

I hate to break your jaded view of the unions but they actually love the compensation culture as they can recommend firms to their members to fight their case and they get a nice kickback from any succesful claims made. I know from a friend who has dealt with the mineworkers claims - the NUM love the compensation courts.

Or am I just being a little bit cynical/truthful??

I'm afraid when it comes to work safety, it is NOT in the hands of the employee to choose how they work, for many reasons. One is that they become a liability to others.

Firstly, how is allowing a person to choose whether or not they work in a smoking atmosphere making them a liability to others?? Lets stick to the argument here.

Secondly, exactly how much do you feel that the state has to intervene in employment and life in general? Is this because you feel that we are incapable of making our own decisions and being responsible for the consequences of those decisions?

We are all capable of making our own decisions and living by those results, please credit your fellow countrymen with the intelligence to decide how they live their life.

[Karlos]

[KennyR]

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.

The person who owns the pub makes that choice - they will make the decision based upon their estimate of the best way to maximise profits, if they view keeping smokers custom to be better than losing non-smokers then it is their business and they should be allowed to do as they wish.

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

I hate to break your jaded view of the unions but they actually love the compensation culture as they can recommend firms to their members to fight their case and they get a nice kickback from any succesful claims made. I know from a friend who has dealt with the mineworkers claims - the NUM love the compensation courts.

Or am I just being a little bit cynical/truthful??

No, just plain, totally wrong. The unions don't get money from claims made, and never have. My father is a union secretary AND a safety executive and has never made a penny from what he does. It's his job and he's proud to do it. In fact, he has to do it - often for no gratitude, far less kickbacks. The people he helps don't need to give him anything, so they don't.

The laws for work safety are quite clear. You can ask your present workplace's union to furnish you with a copy. You can also look at the history of workers in the UK to see why such laws are in place.

And besides, if anyone gets to make a claim they are usually in such a state they need it. Deafness, asbestosis, trauma, you name it. It's not like America where you can stub your toe robbing a store and get $3 million.

Firstly, how is allowing a person to choose whether or not they work in a smoking atmosphere making them a liability to others??

For a start, there's the NHS bills...

Secondly, exactly how much do you feel that the state has to intervene in employment and life in general? Is this because you feel that we are incapable of making our own decisions and being responsible for the consequences of those decisions?

The very idea of you smoking when you know what it can do to you and people around you provides me with an excellent example of why you cannot be considered to be totally reponsible for all your own decisions. In the same way people would be pretty offended if I decided to use my chemistry knowledge to make poisons and bombs. There are laws against that too. Laws for a reason.

We are all capable of making our own decisions and living by those results, please credit your fellow countrymen with the intelligence to decide how they live their life.

 
There's always a thin line between social responsibility and freedom, and allowing tabacco companies and pubs and clubs to profit on our death and misery is well over that line.

[T_Bone]

graffias79 wrote:
Hey I quit smoking using the patch.  If I can do it, anyone can!  I haven't smoked since November 16th.  Unfortunately one of the undesirable side effects of quitting smoking is usually weight gain.  So after I'm sure I'm comfortable without my cigarettes I can start on a diet.  Now that's what will kill me! ;-)

-Jamie

It looks like your cat is having nicotine fits from lack of 2nd hand smoke.   :-P

[ami500]

AccyD wrote:

bloodline wrote:
But what about walking down the street. I have no choice but to "enjoy" the experience of another persons addiction.

What say you?

Considering the density of the traffic these days I would think that you are more likely to become ill due to the traffic fumes than the brief one second that you may pass a smoker on the street.

Does everyone want to ban the car??

Boom. You just shot your cred down with that remark as it's the typical smoker "ace" that they like to play to try and take the heat from themselves. Happens every time in this topic of discussion.

There are a helluva lot more carcogens being sent out unfiltered into the air from cancer sticks than there are from cars.

The fact of the matter is here I have an 8 year old car that has 0% CO emissions due to it having a filter (catalytic converter), and only 18ppm HC emissions (well short of the limit of 150ppm). Plus I fill it up on the best road fuel available here (BP ultimate), which has less benzene and sulphur than every other fuel here, plus being 98RON means I burn less of it being a longer burn fuel. And yes my car has a learning ECU in it to make use of the superior fuel.

Also our traffic department here in my state is doing random emission test stops on cars. So it's something to cut down on the amount of people lighting up their smokey old mitsubishi's.

None of that is being done for unfiltered cigarette smoke.

[ami500]

swift240 wrote:
I hope they ban smoking every where all over the place.
My wife has a friend who comes to visit now and then, she dont give a {bleep} about smoking in other peoples houses.
So I think its about time she was told "Sorry no smoking from now on"
I know this will shatter her world, but to bad. :-D  :-D
The sort of person who thinks that "No smoking" does NOT apply to her.

Mike...... :-)  :-)

Dude, it's your house, kick her out when she decides to light up. Talk to the missus about it. It's an unwritten law here at my place that they take their drug addictions outside. Heck, every mates houses that I go to people take it outside due to respect of their house more than anything else. Mmmm.... I must know some good people then. But in general the public are pigs.

EDIT: Forgot the bloody quote.

[T_Bone]

I don't even smoke in my own house anymore. I got sick of the yellow grime, and of having to paint every room, every year, and having all the drapes dry cleaned every other month.

I had built an air ioniser (a REALLY POWERFULL one, not one of these pittifull ones you buy at the store) in an attempt to keep the house from stinking, and it kind of worked, but it made the yellow grime WORSE as the smoke would get charged and then get sucked right to the wall and stick there. it does knock the smell out, the house smells like a hospital now. :-P

Now I have one room I smoke in, it was a bedroom, but I covered the wall with bookshelves and put a "Masterpiece theatre" style chair with a small table with an ashtray next to it. There's two fans in the window, one blowing in, and one blowing out. :lol:

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:

But people do have a choice. If you do not wish to sit in a pub where smoking is allowed, there are not policemen at the door forcing you to stay, you can go and find another where smoking is banned. Similarly, if you do not wish to work in a smoking environment then you are free to leave.

Supposing they want to sit in that pub, but without the smoke? Smokers are taking away their choice to do that.

No, the Pub owner took their choice to do that away when they decided to run a Pub that allows smoking. If Democracy had anything to do with it, that'd spill over into Capitalism and the choice of the Pub owner who'd naturally cater to the larger crowd.

Anyway, it's a freaking bar for crying out loud. Rather than these stupid smoking bans, why not stipulate some kind of regulation with regards to ventilation in public areas that allow smoking? Most places here that have smoking sections are liberally ventilated and even while in the smoking section you can't smell it.

[bloodline]

One probem with no smoking pubs, at least here in London, is they are always so packed, you can't get in :-x