Wanna live longer? Stop other people smoking!!

[that_punk_guy]

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.

[that_punk_guy]

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.

[that_punk_guy]

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]

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.

[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.