Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: FluffyMcDeath on April 08, 2004, 09:56:48 PM
-
Very intersting.
Sounds like a good reason to ban smoking in public areas.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/05/sci-tech/smoke_ban040405 (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/05/sci-tech/smoke_ban040405)
-
Any reason to ban smoking is a good reason IMHO.
-
Agreed...
We could even have a scorched earth policy?
(http://www.jim4sparks.com/images/scortch.jpg)
-
Bah!
-
:lol:
Can't afflict your self on other people for commiting crimes against humanity, but you can against smokers. :lol:
OK. :bigcry: Spilt Milk.
-
bloodline wrote:
Any reason to ban smoking is a good reason IMHO.
Yeah, the initial effect will be huge unsold stocks of cigarettes, so they'll come down in price and be much cheaper for ME! Hey, one can always hope...
Bah! Ban second hand smoking instead, so the whining leeching cheapskates will have to buy their own tobacco.
Actually, I've been trying to cut down on my smoking, and started to use Swedish wet snuff more and more.
-
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.
Its such a pitty that those who smoke are to WEAK willed to give it up.
Sad lot, they realy are.
Mike...... :-) :-)
-
swift240 wrote:
Its such a pitty that those who smoke are to WEAK willed to give it up.
I disagree. I'm a smoker and I actually enjoy smoking and willpower has nothing to do with it. I don't want to stop and don't see why the governement and others wish to impose their views on me.
As far as bans go, the ban in Ireland was unnessacery. If pubs & clubs want to go no smoking there is no law against it, the owners are completey within their rights to do that.
Why should they be forced to succum to the governments whim, smoke is not being forced onto employees or customers - if they want to work or socialise somewhere else, again, no one is stopping them from leaving these places.
The reason that these places have not banned smoking voluntarily is that they know that the inevitable impact will be less custom & thus less profits & less jobs. People have predicted that around 60,000 jobs could be lost in Ireland from the ban as less tourists visit the country, and when they do they won't visit the traditional inns.
Combined with less tobacco sales & thus less taxation, and the increase in social security benefits being paid to the unemployed this could really backfire on the Irish government.
-
Spoken like a true smoker.
Mike..... :-)
-
swift240 wrote:
Spoken like a true smoker.
Mike..... :-)
Cor strong argument for your cause ........... :-)
-
disagree. I'm a smoker and I actually enjoy smoking and willpower has nothing to do with it. I don't want to stop and don't see why the governement and others wish to impose their views on me.
I don't believe you... you couldn't give up smoking any more than I could give up masturbating... I'm sure you'd be really unhappy if I sat down in a pub, poped my little chap in the table and then "manipulated it to issue"... however I'm sure we would all share in your delight as I proceed to smear the resultant emission in your hair, clothes and face...
Fortunatelly, for you, there is a public ban upon masturbation.
-
Now that I find funny.........
Mike..... :-D :-D :-D :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
you couldn't give up smoking any more than I could give up masturbating...
Did I say that I felt I could give up smoking??
No. I said i didn't want to. The two are very different. I assume it would be hard for me to stop (I haven't tried) but I don't want to, so why does willpower come into the argument??
bloodline wrote:
Fortunatelly, for you, there is a public ban upon masturbation.
You are taking your argument to the nth degree, and at which point it becomes absurd.
Using your reasoning, if I wanted to or didn't mind watching you (plural by the way not personal :-D)masturbate I would visit a Soho sex cinema, but I don't, so I don't visit those areas.
Translating this to our argument, if you don't want to visit a smoky atmosphere then only go to pubs which ban smoking - surely if there are so many of you then the pubs which presently allow smoking will ban it and you will have achieved your aim??
The reason more pubs do not ban smoking (as said in the previous post) is that it is not in their interests to do so as they know their trade will decline substantially.
So what I am saying is let market forces decide the outcome, not the government. Pub owners will go where the profits are, and it is plainly clear given the number of non-smoking pubs, that the market has shown that pub owners are better off allowing smoking as most people prefer it that way.
-
I always abstract every situation to it's most extreme. That makes it easier to see.
Anyway, I have no problem with people smoking/masturbating in pubs. But what about walking down the street. I have no choice but to "enjoy" the experience of another persons addiction.
What say you?
-
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??
-
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!
-
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
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :D
None of that is being done for unfiltered cigarette smoke.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
One probem with no smoking pubs, at least here in London, is they are always so packed, you can't get in :-x
-
Smokers must be the biggest group of whingers there is! I don't think there should have to be laws passed on this issue, but the fact is that addiction turns people in to sorry, selfish assholes.
Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.
Like I said, such a shame that we have to legislate common courtesy.
-
Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.
Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
Smokers must be the biggest group of whingers there is! I don't think there should have to be laws passed on this issue, but the fact is that addiction turns people in to sorry, selfish assholes.
Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.
Like I said, such a shame that we have to legislate common courtesy.
Tell me about it. Take that damn food outside and let us smokers smoke in peace without us having to put up with your annoying chewing sounds interfereing with our puffing! :lol:
-
bloodline wrote:
Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.
Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.
You'll want a cigarette after you're finished :-P
-
bloodline wrote:
Standing upwind of someone and sparking up, or smoking while someone else is trying to eat, etc., is inconsiderate and downright f**king rude.
Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.
Yes, I can see they wouldn't have the patience for a friction induced flame when asking for a light...
-
AccyD wrote:
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.
Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport. Or how about bus. Are people who go to airports choosing to smoke vicariously? Or do they go to airports for entirely different reasons? What about restaurants? What about in the average workplace?
KennyR wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Choosing to not work in an unhealthy environment is tantamount to choosing not to work if there are no better places for the worker to work. I have known many people who have worked smokey bars not because they wanted to work in smokey bars, but that they were able to work in a smokey bar when no-one else was hiring. So long as there are people desperate for a job (even for just a short time) there will be people willing to take these jobs but the fact that people still work these jobs does not mean that they are hapy to do so or even would do so given the choice.
-
ami500 wrote:
The fact of the matter is here I have an 8 year old car that has 0% CO emissions
Please can you tell me the make & model of this car - if this is true then I will get it as my next co. car.
I would think that the catalytic converter whilst reducing some exhaust gases does not eliminate them completly otherwise why would the IR (in the UK) use the emission figures for taxing company cars?
If you could eliminate the CO2 emmisions completely by doing this then why am I being taxed 28% for my car emitting 214 grams of CO2 for every mile I drive?
-
bloodline wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.
True, but if there is a Miss Bloodline then that might make things more interesting....... :-D :-D
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport.
I would think the hundreds of thouands of gallons of airline fuel would make me think twice about smoking in an airport.
-
AccyD wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't expect a Smoker would be too happy if I engaged in an act of self love next to them, whilst they were trying to enjoy a fine meal.
True, but if there is a Miss Bloodline then that might make things more interesting....... :-D :-D
I'm not sure she'd be as keen as me to perform this act, in public :-)
The Catalytic converter converts CO from the exhaust in to CO2. CO is harmful to Humans (poisonous to most living things), CO2 causes the green house effect but is otherwise harmless (and is converted to Oxygen (plus carbohydrates) by Plants).
-
KennyR wrote:
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.
Exactly which goods do you suggest we tax, if smoking were to be banned, and don't forget you would need to cover the extra social security payments to those who were made redundant when shops turnover declines.
The pollution of cars is exactly right here, you are arguing that my smoking is irresponsible and causes you and others harm by my actions. How does this differ from me deriving benefit from driving my car fast and polluting the atmosphere, either way you are harmed.
You cannot stop your argument when it begins to infringe upon the things you enjoy - either you believe your argument or you don't - which is it??
KennyR wrote:
Government vs. capital, government wins. Which is how it should be. I'm damn sure I never voted for any investors.
Are you suggesting that the Government should intervene in all aspects of business.....you are going down a very long road there and there are many examples I could cite to you which would prove the road is a dead end.
Leave the market to decide, if the non-smokers are so confident of their argument and vote with their feet it won't be long before business follows and bans smoking.
KennyR wrote:
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.
And I'm sure he doesn't recieve a penny for his time, and I admire him for giving up his time so freely, it should be actively encouraged (no sarcasm intended).
But that's not to say that his union doesn't recieve anything for recruiting the people to claim through a particular agency. I have a friend who works for the "official" claims company for the NUM, and he has seen the monies they have paid to the union for the access to their membership lists and the right to advertise as the "recommended partner".
Don't let yourself be disillusioned, the unions are in this to make as much money as possible for themselves. I'm sure the members and activists have the same ideals as your father - and that's to be commended - but please don't put your head int he sand over the realities of life.
Kenny R Wrote:
For a start, there's the NHS bills...
Over my lifetime any NHS bills I incur I will have paid many times over through taxation of my hobby (incidentally I have PMI but that would kill your argument even more as I'm paying for the privilidge twice!!).
KennyR wrote:
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.
Do you drink, do you drive above the speed limit, do you eat too much/too little??
What about these decisions they can all affect you and others around you, do I claim that you cannot make those decisions knowing the consequeces? No. We all have the right to make our own decisions about our choices in life (before you say that the non-smokers don't have a choice they do, they are not forced attend areas where smoking is permitted).
Alternatively, to follow your reasoning, who do you suggest makes the decisions as to what I can & can't do?? Because again we are going down roads which have been tried & failed in the past.
KennyR wrote:
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.
Slightly extreme argument don't you think??
KennyR wrote:
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.
I enjoy my habit, no one forces me to do it, and I accept that there are risks involved. Why should I let you make decisions about my life??
If I want to buy a legal product what is wrong with someone providing a service to allow me to buy that product, that's not wrong, thats capitalisim and it works. If no one wants to buy that product then Government bans will not be needed but whilst the majority of the public visit smoking bars it is clear where the UK stands on the issue.
-
Exactly which goods do you suggest we tax, if smoking were to be banned, and don't forget you would need to cover the extra social security payments to those who were made redundant when shops turnover declines.
When people don't smoke they have more money, and spend more on luxuries. Which boost the Economy. And the reduced strain on the health service all compensate.
-
bloodline wrote:
When people don't smoke they have more money, and spend more on luxuries. Which boost the Economy. And the reduced strain on the health service all compensate.
No item is taxed as much as cigarettes, so although expenditure may remain the same actual tax revenues will fall (even if you take account of higher profits).
The reduced strain on the NHS will harm non-smokers, at present they are subsidised by smokers, things will only get worse if smoking is banned.
Less cancer specialists, less equipment......sound like a world you would like to live in??
No me neither...
P.S. Hope you didn't take offence at the Miss Bloodline reference - I was only joking.
-
AccyD wrote:
bloodline wrote:
When people don't smoke they have more money, and spend more on luxuries. Which boost the Economy. And the reduced strain on the health service all compensate.
No item is taxed as much as cigarettes, so although expenditure may remain the same actual tax revenues will fall (even if you take account of higher profits).
The reduced strain on the NHS will harm non-smokers, at present they are subsidised by smokers, things will only get worse if smoking is banned.
Less cancer specialists, less equipment......sound like a world you would like to live in??
No me neither...
P.S. Hope you didn't take offence at the Miss Bloodline reference - I was only joking.
No offence taken :-) (I would hope you don't take offence at my counter argument).
Anyway, if more moeny was spent on proper items, we get a stronger ecomony. When you buy something that requires 2 people to make rather than a cigarette that requires approx no people to make, then it creates jobs.
You see cigarette tax is a false economy, and it is unsustaiable.
As for the NHS, that will remain the same regardless. If we have to pay more tax that won't matter since we will ahve more money in our pockets due to the strong economy... you see cigarettes really are a bad thing.
-
bloodline wrote:
No offence taken :-) (I would hope you don't take offence at my counter argument).
Anyway, if more moeny was spent on proper items, we get a stronger ecomony. When you buy something that requires 2 people to make rather than a cigarette that requires approx no people to make, then it creates jobs.
As per this pageCigarette Tax (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press/990309.html) cigarette taxation is approximately 80% (I appreciate the link is 5 years out of date, but this situation would only have worsened over the last few years).
So for evey £100 spent on cigarettes, £80 goes to the Government (ignoring any profits made by the tobacco companies).
Compare this to "normal" goods, where £100 sales equals around £15 VAT & if you say a gross margin of 10% on the net sales value (a good margin for most companies) then tax at 10% (min corp taxaton rate), you get corp tax of £0.85.
So total taxation of £15.85 versus cigarette taxation of £80. A massive variance wouldn't you agree?? Especially since I have been generous with the calculations to benefit the non-smoker argument.
No good (with the exception of possibly fuel) could achieve the same taxation gains as cigarettes.
Bllodline wrote:
As for the NHS, that will remain the same regardless.
How when tax revenues fall? Can you imagine a Government increasing income tax to cover the £65 difference in taxation, and still remaining in power??
No, I didn't think so.
Cigarettes are good for the economy as a whole and as such any ban will harm your health as much as mine, as lower tax revenues have to be spent on more people's helath & pension benefits.
If I stop smoking I may live longer but will also consume more social security & healthcare benefits making the situation even worse, and reducing the amount left to be spent on non-smokers.
So in effect by banning smoking you may be having a negative effect on your own health!! Life is strange ! :-D
-
AccyD wrote:
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport.
I would think the hundreds of thouands of gallons of airline fuel would make me think twice about smoking in an airport.
I doubt that, but what about the other scenarios where such a quip is even less realistic. How about hospitals? How about Kindergartens?
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
I doubt that, but what about the other scenarios where such a quip is even less realistic. How about hospitals? How about Kindergartens?
I think this again comes down to the free market.
Where the private sector has deemed it to be a bad thing, (i.e. in hospitals & kindegartens) I have no problems accepting their rules if I wish to use their services (as, as far as i am aware there is no current legislation banning smoking in either of these places).
Incidentally, in most UK hospitals until fairly recently (last 5 years) you were allowed to smoke on most wards in the hospitals.
If only the anti-smoking lobby followed our views, and understood that if firms view that it is in their interests to allow smoking on their premises, then the potential customers should respect that view.
Let business owners make their own rules not the Government, if publ;ic opinion is strong enough then they will follow.
-
AccyD wrote:
Let business owners make their own rules not the Government, if publ;ic opinion is strong enough then they will follow.
No, because the only thing they are interested in is profit, and don't mind if we suffer for it. On the other hand, governments have to cater to us or we vote them out. There's not really an option here.
Free market...urgh. If it was really free then I could buy guns, nerve gas, child porn, slaves and plutonium. Thankfully, we live in a more civilised world.
-
High tax income from cigarettes does not an economy make. :-)
-
Wanna live longer?
---------------------------------
Stop drinking and driving.
Stop war.
Stop automobile pollution..
Stop Factory pollution.
Stop illegal drug use.
Stop criminals from doing crime.
On and on,
Ah crap. At this rate we might as well take over the world. Kill all those who might rebel ( 9 out of 10 ? ) and start all over again. :lol:
-
KennyR wrote:
No, because the only thing they are interested in is profit, and don't mind if we suffer for it. On the other hand, governments have to cater to us or we vote them out. There's not really an option here.
Wrong.
Everyone knows the risks associated with smoking if you choose not to put yourself in the position of sharing a pub with me (a smoker) then the pubs will see their profits decline. If the owners view this is worth more than my custom then the free market would then respond to your desires and non-smoking pubs would replace those outlets. It's nothing to do with them not caring about their consumers health, they leave the decisions up to us (quite right too) and merely provide what the customers want.
So you see if your argument was supported by enough people then there would be no need for legislation - but there isn't and I think that is what is annoying you !
People have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, this is not the role of Government to take those decisions away from them, and you cannot critise business for providing for our desires - that is what the economy is made up of.
Free market...urgh. If it was really free then I could buy guns, nerve gas, child porn, slaves and plutonium.
Can you not discuss your arguments without resorting to extreme, and unreasonable examples??
-
EDIT: OOps posted twice
-
Wolfe wrote:
Wanna live longer?
---------------------------------
Stop drinking and driving.
Stop war.
Stop automobile pollution..
Stop Factory pollution.
Stop illegal drug use.
Stop criminals from doing crime.
On and on,
Ah crap. At this rate we might as well take over the world. Kill all those who might rebel ( 9 out of 10 ? ) and start all over again. :lol:
What about sex?? :-D :-D
-
Smokers are fairly evenly distributed among those bars/pubs who do not have a smoking policy. The problem is that if there's nowhere else to go, people will put up with the smoke and until someone has the balls to open a non-smoking bar/pub within the same sphere of influence people simply do not get the chance to exercise the "freedom" of capitalism/consumerism you've so graciously bestowed upon them.
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. And you still aren't considering the person who had no choice but to take a job at a bar.
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.
-
AccyD wrote:
Everyone knows the risks associated with smoking
But everyone also knows that those risks only effect "other" people. :-D
if you choose not to put yourself in the position of sharing a pub with me (a smoker) then the pubs will see their profits decline.
What has been found locally is that when a group of people go out for a few drinks, if there is a smoker (even only one) in the group, the group will generally go to a smoking establishment rather than alienate the smoker. They are willing to put themselves at risk rather than make the addict feel bad. This is an irrational behaviour but the "free market" we know today would collapse if humans behaved rationally. Crowds in bars are generally not risk averse anyway else why would they drink so much?
Anyway, it's funny to see a smoker getting so uptight about their habit. I don't think I was that uptight when I was a smoker, and if you are, it's a sign that you aren't smoking enough! :lol:
The point of the article was how HUGE the effect of public smoking is on public health among non-smokers. Doubtless if the ban had been given more time the heart attack rate would have gone back up since these are tickers that'll probably fail later anyway, but that the smoking was such a potent trigger was interesting. It would be even more interesting to have been able to observe the effect over a longer period to see just how much longer it would take the folks with dicky tickers to succumb if there was no public smoking.
BTW, smoke in a bar or your car or a room in your house is significantly more toxic that street level car polution, and car polution is quite strictly legislated in most of the industrialized world.
-
that_punk_guy wrote:
People won't open clean bars/pubs because they're scared of losing the custom.
Exactly, so why should the Government intervene to make a business practice which is unviable, adjust the market just to make it viable - but even that is not guranteed, if pubs were to ban smoking I would simply buy beers at home and not visit them, so it might not even work. By adjusting the market you may find you have less places to enjoy yourself anyway.
If there were enough people sharing your views then the problem would solve itself. I would freely accept business' decisions if they felt it more profitable to make their pub non-smoking - what I do have a problem with is the Government intervening.
And you still aren't considering the person who had no choice but to take a job at a bar.
We all have a choice. I visited the local jobcentre last week (my wife is looking for a new job) and there were hundreds of jobs - not highly skilled - availiable so it is hardly like they are forced to take these jobs.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
AccyD wrote:
Everyone knows the risks associated with smoking
But everyone also knows that those risks only effect "other" people. :-D
That is immaterial, we have the information to hand if we choose to either disregard this, or view that it is not a risk worth worrying about then that is our choice.
I fully understand the risks that smoking has and that I have a 50/50 chance of dying from the effects but it is my choice, and for whatever personal reasons I have I choose to do it.
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
What has been found locally is that when a group of people go out for a few drinks, if there is a smoker (even only one) in the group, the group will generally go to a smoking establishment rather than alienate the smoker..... Crowds in bars are generally not risk averse anyway else why would they drink so much?
Yes, but they all have a choice - no one is forcing you or your friends to visit a smoking pub, you all have your right to decide where you visit.
Why should the Government legislate to avoid you or your friends feeling embarassed at upsetting your friends, by going to a non-smoking pub? People have to take responsiblity for their actions and not defer to the Government.
As said earlier if you are confident that your views are felt by so many people then vote with your feet and the pubs will follow......unless of course you are not that confident that the majority of people will follow your views??
Incidentally, are you now advocating that we ban drinking too?? :lol: :lol:
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Anyway, it's funny to see a smoker getting so uptight about their habit. I don't think I was that uptight when I was a smoker, and if you are, it's a sign that you aren't smoking enough! :lol:
Its more the idea of free choice that I am advocating and that we should be able to make those choices ourselves rather than have the views of 658 people determine our choices for us.
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
BTW, smoke in a bar or your car or a room in your house is significantly more toxic that street level car polution, and car polution is quite strictly legislated in most of the industrialized world.
Yes, however, cars emit many more times more pollution than cigarettes in the UK. The pollutants in my 3,650 annual cigarettes I'm sure is dwarfed by the emmisions from my 40,000 miles travelled in my car each year.
Also, you have the option of avoiding cigarettes (visit only non-smoking areas) however, you cannot reasonably avoid motor vehicles so they probably have a much higher impact on the non-smokers health.
-
You know it makes me laugh........ yes it does the people who smoke can make lots of excuses for it. like.....
"I can give it up if I want to"
or
"My gran smoked for 35 years and she was o.k"
or
"Its my only bit of pleaser"
or
"I tried for a day but I couldnt give it up"
or
"I wil die if I dont have a fag"
or
"Why should I"
People who smoke just dont give a {bleep} for any one who is around them, they say "Ohhhh well they can always move"
How bloody sad is that????
I hope they ban it EVERY WHERE.
Weak willed, very sad indeed.
Mike......
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
AccyD wrote:
that_punk_guy wrote:
People won't open clean bars/pubs because they're scared of losing the custom.
Exactly, so why should the Government intervene to make a business practice which is unviable
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.
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.
I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why that benefits us all.
We all have a choice. I visited the local jobcentre last week (my wife is looking for a new job) and there were hundreds of jobs - not highly skilled - availiable so it is hardly like they are forced to take these jobs.
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.
Edit: Removed trolling :-(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!"
:P
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.
-
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.
-
*cough* *cough*
my last *cough* wish: a ciggy... *COUGH*
-
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!!!"
:P
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.
-
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.
-
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 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 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 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.
-
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-
(http://www.twinstuff.com/pattyandselma.gif)
:nervous: