Smoking establishments - Debate, not abuse.

[Guest]

Not only are you prepared to squander your life by smoking, but seem prepared to waste the bit you have on your mindless quest to insult everyone else about your loss of ability to poison them.

 

I have not insulted anyone else but simply insisted that I am free to make my own choices on smoking whether that choice be right or wrong.

 

If you read my opening post, you will see that, this post was was NOT about my loss of ability to poison non-smokers - it was quite the opposite, about wanting to get as far away as possible from non-smokers.

[Guest]

To sum up this thread, so far.

For my suggestion of a limited number of smoking establishments so that we could smoke without annoying the non-smokers -

There would seem to be support mostly from smokers, which I expected.

Support from an odd one or two who don't smoke but, to their credit, care enough about our personal freedom to say so.

Unbridled opposition from the usual anti-smoking lot on here -

That should be surprising because they DON'T want us smoking near them but, strangely enough, they DON'T want us smoking far away from them either.

 

The bottom line is -

it isn't about them having to suffer passive smoking - because they don't want us doing it in a smoking establishment, well away from them - so that's just a cover

it isn't about them smelling our smoke or our clothes - again, because they don't want us doing it, well away from them - so that's just a cover too.

They certainly don't care about our health and well being (and neither would I want them to) and take delight in the fact that we stand (even the elderly) outside in the cold.

 

None have come up with an argument against it - the closest they have got to a debateable point is regarding maintenance staff etc.

None of them have said that they would like smoking to be completely banned altogether - because they don't want their taxes rising.

None of them have called for the banning of other things which lead to addiction, such as alcohol which causes immensley more trouble.

 

They insist that theirs is the majority view whereas it seems to be accepted that if there were smokers pubs, they would be full and the smoke free ones would be empty,

that being the main reason why the government didn't allow each pub to choose.

Afraid I can't recall us having a referendum on it so who knows what the majority view is.

 

THEY SIMPLY WANT, OUT OF SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS AND SPITE, TO SPOIL OUR ENJOYMENT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

 

Pity it's not a courtroom drama - I could then say "I rest my case"

[SnailyBoy]

To sum up this thread, so far.

For my suggestion of a limited number of smoking establishments so that we could smoke without annoying the non-smokers -

There would seem to be support mostly from smokers, which I expected.

Support from an odd one or two who don't smoke but, to their credit, care enough about our personal freedom to say so.

Unbridled opposition from the usual anti-smoking lot on here -

That should be surprising because they DON'T want us smoking near them but, strangely enough, they DON'T want us smoking far away from them either.

 

The bottom line is -

it isn't about them having to suffer passive smoking - because they don't want us doing it in a smoking establishment, well away from them - so that's just a cover

it isn't about them smelling our smoke or our clothes - again, because they don't want us doing it, well away from them - so that's just a cover too.

They certainly don't care about our health and well being (and neither would I want them to) and take delight in the fact that we stand (even the elderly) outside in the cold.

 

None have come up with an argument against it - the closest they have got to a debateable point is regarding maintenance staff etc.

None of them have said that they would like smoking to be completely banned altogether - because they don't want their taxes rising.

None of them have called for the banning of other things which lead to addiction, such as alcohol which causes immensley more trouble.

 

They insist that theirs is the majority view whereas it seems to be accepted that if there were smokers pubs, they would be full and the smoke free ones would be empty,

that being the main reason why the government didn't allow each pub to choose.

Afraid I can't recall us having a referendum on it so who knows what the majority view is.

 

THEY SIMPLY WANT, OUT OF SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS AND SPITE, TO SPOIL OUR ENJOYMENT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

 

Pity it's not a courtroom drama - I could then say "I rest my case"

 

Wow....and they say smoking has a calming effect.

[xfox3x]

To sum up this thread, so far.

For my suggestion of a limited number of smoking establishments so that we could smoke without annoying the non-smokers -

There would seem to be support mostly from smokers, which I expected.

Support from an odd one or two who don't smoke but, to their credit, care enough about our personal freedom to say so.

Unbridled opposition from the usual anti-smoking lot on here -

That should be surprising because they DON'T want us smoking near them but, strangely enough, they DON'T want us smoking far away from them either.

 

The bottom line is -

it isn't about them having to suffer passive smoking - because they don't want us doing it in a smoking establishment, well away from them - so that's just a cover

it isn't about them smelling our smoke or our clothes - again, because they don't want us doing it, well away from them - so that's just a cover too.

They certainly don't care about our health and well being (and neither would I want them to) and take delight in the fact that we stand (even the elderly) outside in the cold.

 

None have come up with an argument against it - the closest they have got to a debateable point is regarding maintenance staff etc.

None of them have said that they would like smoking to be completely banned altogether - because they don't want their taxes rising.

None of them have called for the banning of other things which lead to addiction, such as alcohol which causes immensley more trouble.

 

They insist that theirs is the majority view whereas it seems to be accepted that if there were smokers pubs, they would be full and the smoke free ones would be empty,

that being the main reason why the government didn't allow each pub to choose.

Afraid I can't recall us having a referendum on it so who knows what the majority view is.

 

THEY SIMPLY WANT, OUT OF SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS AND SPITE, TO SPOIL OUR ENJOYMENT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

 

Pity it's not a courtroom drama - I could then say "I rest my case"

 

Preeeeeeeeeeeee-cisely:hihi:

Well summed up!

[Ms Macbeth]

I stopped smoking 15 years ago, after 20 a day for around 30 years. For the last few years of my smoking career, I was one of those huddled round the exit/entrance at work, in all weathers - I (thought I) loved smoking and had no intention of giving up.

 

However, I experienced my mother, who had dementia, wanting nothing but cigarettes in the last few years of her life. She was burning her clothes, her hair, the carpet etc. That prompted me to stop, and I doubt whether I'll ever start again.

 

I have nothing against smokers exercising their right to smoke, but I wouldn't support any move to allow pubs specifically for smokers. I can understand why smokers would like them, but the fewer places there are that encourage the habit the better IMO. Apart from the health risks (and I know it doesn't affect every smoker) anyone on a low income must be going without some necessities in order to pay for such an expensive habit.

[puisseguin]

To sum up this thread, so far.

For my suggestion of a limited number of smoking establishments so that we could smoke without annoying the non-smokers -

There would seem to be support mostly from smokers, which I expected.

Support from an odd one or two who don't smoke but, to their credit, care enough about our personal freedom to say so.

Unbridled opposition from the usual anti-smoking lot on here -

That should be surprising because they DON'T want us smoking near them but, strangely enough, they DON'T want us smoking far away from them either.

 

The bottom line is -

it isn't about them having to suffer passive smoking - because they don't want us doing it in a smoking establishment, well away from them - so that's just a cover

it isn't about them smelling our smoke or our clothes - again, because they don't want us doing it, well away from them - so that's just a cover too.

They certainly don't care about our health and well being (and neither would I want them to) and take delight in the fact that we stand (even the elderly) outside in the cold.

 

None have come up with an argument against it - the closest they have got to a debateable point is regarding maintenance staff etc.

None of them have said that they would like smoking to be completely banned altogether - because they don't want their taxes rising.

None of them have called for the banning of other things which lead to addiction, such as alcohol which causes immensley more trouble.

 

They insist that theirs is the majority view whereas it seems to be accepted that if there were smokers pubs, they would be full and the smoke free ones would be empty,

that being the main reason why the government didn't allow each pub to choose.

Afraid I can't recall us having a referendum on it so who knows what the majority view is.

 

THEY SIMPLY WANT, OUT OF SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS AND SPITE, TO SPOIL OUR ENJOYMENT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

 

Pity it's not a courtroom drama - I could then say "I rest my case"

 

No.

 

To sum up you've wasted another couple of days of your life playing the same song that has been played a hundred times on this forum, and the result is you have convinced no one who would be interested in altering any regulations.

 

The fact remains that most people are very happy with the current situation. No one has to smoke, and those who can't sit in a pub for half an hour without having to have a fag are free to nip outside and do just that.

 

It takes no longer than nipping out for a pee, or are you suggesting that we should have special pubs where that can be done without leaving the bar as well.

[Alien]

The title says "Not abuse" yet smoking by definition regardless of smoking in front of a smoker or non smoker is abuse, not only to them but yourself. It's very difficult to remove abuse from the situation.

[Guest]

I stopped smoking 15 years ago, after 20 a day for around 30 years. For the last few years of my smoking career, I was one of those huddled round the exit/entrance at work, in all weathers - I (thought I) loved smoking and had no intention of giving up.

 

However, I experienced my mother, who had dementia, wanting nothing but cigarettes in the last few years of her life. She was burning her clothes, her hair, the carpet etc. That prompted me to stop, and I doubt whether I'll ever start again.

 

I have nothing against smokers exercising their right to smoke, but I wouldn't support any move to allow pubs specifically for smokers. I can understand why smokers would like them, but the fewer places there are that encourage the habit the better IMO. Apart from the health risks (and I know it doesn't affect every smoker) anyone on a low income must be going without some necessities in order to pay for such an expensive habit.

 

 

This is another view of the situation and I understand the reasons for what you say - at least you don't take a dogmatic attitude to smokers.

 

Personally, I don't think that many are stopping simply because they can't go to the pub which means, of course, that I don't think that my suggestion would encourage the numbers of smokers to go up dramatically.

Naturally, I accept that I could be proved wrong on this in the same way that I think it would prove me right.

 

Your viewpoint therefore, is a valid "against" vote and you have a perfect right, as we all do, to state your beliefs.

[Guest]

The title says "Not abuse" yet smoking by definition regardless of smoking in front of a smoker or non smoker is abuse, not only to them but yourself. It's very difficult to remove abuse from the situation.

 

Find me a smoker who thinks I am abusing him/her by smoking in front of them and I will find you a few thousand who would say I'm not.

 

With reference to abusing myself, we all do this to some extent in many different ways - some with alcohol, some with other drugs, some with extremely unhealthy diets, some with lack of exercise.

 

I only drink around the recommended limits, eat a very good and healthy diet and exercise every day so my abuse of myself is probably less than most peoples.

The main thing is that I, AND ONLY I, have any right to decide on whether I abuse my body and to what extent, and will not have any anti this or anti that fanatics pontificating to me what I should do.

 

I don't spend my time telling non-smokers that they should smoke so I would like them to extend the same courtesy to me.

[Guest]

No.

 

To sum up you've wasted another couple of days of your life playing the same song that has been played a hundred times on this forum, and the result is you have convinced no one who would be interested in altering any regulations.

 

The fact remains that most people are very happy with the current situation. No one has to smoke, and those who can't sit in a pub for half an hour without having to have a fag are free to nip outside and do just that.

 

It takes no longer than nipping out for a pee, or are you suggesting that we should have special pubs where that can be done without leaving the bar as well.

 

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything or to change anyone's mind - I was trying to see whether the anti-smoking brigade can come up with one good valid reason why my suggestion would not be better for everyone concerned.

In view of the fact that they haven't come up with anything except "we don't like you smoking", I consider my time well spent.

 

The "most" people you refer to, who are happy with the current situation, are obviously the non-smokers who's unhappiness about our smoking outside, prompted this thread so no one seems to be very happy at all.

 

I agree that no one HAS to smoke, in the same way that no one HAS to drink - we simply WANT to, so I fail to see how that validates your argument either.

 

Rather than let you decide, we will decide for ourselves how long we would like to sit in the pub before we go out for a smoke and you may remember that the argument arose about us smoking OUTSIDE.

 

Having a pee is nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.