simplyangel1 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well said. I've been just a bit shocked at some of the absolute vehemence expressed by some people - now, as a smoker, it ought to be me who is filled with hatred and anger but I'm not. There are a lot of things which are legal which I do not do, and which I quietly disapprove of, but I know that a lot of people get pleasure from those things and I know that we have to balance health & safety with simple fun. So I restrain my primal urges and consider the other person's point of view. What is the point in living at all if we do not have pleasures to enjoy? Many if not most of these pleasures have a negative impact on society somewhere along the line. It is all about not overdoing those pleasures in my opinion. This new law will protect the workers in these places, and I'm fine with that in principle. Smokers can still smoke, but they will not be harming others. For those who are still not happy, take a good, long look at your own life and really examine whether everything you do is 100% ethical, because you too will be upsetting someone else somewhere in society with your behaviour. End of the third lesson. Time for a cig.... well said mathom at least someone can see things from an all round point of view without being bitchly. this debated has become to personal with some people just because they don't agree with someones opinion. and there is no need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 The right not to have done to you, always outweighs someone elses right to do something. Otherwise murder wouldn't be illegal. Is this only true for smoking, or are there other areas in which this fundamental principle may be applied? I can think of one or two. A custom collapse of custom in 10% of Wetherspoons pubs would not preclude a rise in share price (in and of itself). So it's wrong to conclude from share prices that banning smoking didn't cause a collapse in custom at the selected establishments. I look forward with interest to how this ban will be enforced. and news from accross the pond: Just read a post on another newspaper website where someone living in San Diego LA informs that although the state has banned smoking in public places, they are now attending to legislation to ban the use of perfume, deodorant, and all scents that offend the nose, from public places. Good for those who are allergic to perfume, not so sure how it will offend the Anti-Smoking lobby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffco Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I may be wrong, but I suspect that among the youth of today, alcohol is a bigger health threat and contributor to crime and anti-social behaviour than the nicotine addiction &Ban being debated. Most people on this thread seem to be mentioning their dislike of entering pubs and clubs where smoking is allowed - - - If the government can ban smoking, (While allowing it in their own little club) why not ban alcohol and Pubs etc. altogether? End of debate. Drink or smoke at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I may be wrong, but I suspect that among the youth of today, alcohol is a bigger health threat and contributor to crime and anti-social behaviour than the nicotine addiction &Ban being debated. Most people on this thread seem to be mentioning their dislike of entering pubs and clubs where smoking is allowed - - - If the government can ban smoking, (While allowing it in their own little club) why not ban alcohol and Pubs etc. altogether? End of debate. Drink or smoke at home. No one has suggested that smoking is a cause of crime, nor is the ban meant to improve the health of the smokees. If there is a good argument for banning alcohol and pubs then i'd be interested to hear it. Phan - Which one or two areas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Phan - Which one or two areas? The right not to have done to you, always outweighs someone elses right to do something. This applies to smoking. Anything else it applies to, or just smoking? If it not just smoking, then I want everyone to drive their cars somewhere private, where I don't have to inhale the fumes. On the principle that the right to not have something done to me always outweighs someone elses right to do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickmonk Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Banning smoking in most pubs - fine by me. Ban it in your Wetherspoons and your nice Country pubs, in pubs that do food and town centre bars. But why on earth do the powers that be feel it necessary to ban smoking in 'local pubs for local people'. You know the places - everyone in there smokes (including the staff) and non-smokers are generally not in the least inclined to enter. Non-smokers worried about the 'stink yadda yadda' need never enter those hell holes of debauchery. (good thing too!) Chicken Monkey x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 It's a good point Phan. But I think the key difference is that driving isn't a hobby and even non drivers benefit directly from motor traffic. I don't disagree that options should be investigated to minimise pollution from vehicles, but it's not an issue of a few people practising a nasty habbit and expecting everyone else to put up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopT Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 One side issue with the banning of smoking in clubs,cafes, pubs and public buildings such as hospitals etc is that some of the smokers go outside for a smoke. This means if non smokers want to sit out in the fresh air they have to put up with the smoke from all the smokers who have moved out due to the indoor ban. In Oz the law has been made so that no one can smoke within a certain distance of the banned places. Visit any hospital and several public buildings and you will be met by a barrage of smoke in the doorways from smokers who stand outside smoking. Comments please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C. Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 One side issue with the banning of smoking in clubs,cafes, pubs and public buildings such as hospitals etc is that some of the smokers go outside for a smoke. This means if non smokers want to sit out in the fresh air they have to put up with the smoke from all the smokers who have moved out due to the indoor ban. In Oz the law has been made so that no one can smoke within a certain distance of the banned places. Visit any hospital and several public buildings and you will be met by a barrage of smoke in the doorways from smokers who stand outside smoking. Comments please! I remember at Sheffield College, they had a perimeter line forming a box around the entrance doors (about 10m away) - security could be quite rigourous in their enforcement of the line Meant I didn't need to walk through clouds of smoke (usually) as people were fairly far away from the doors anyway. Not that its really a workable solution in real life. Smoking in hospitals and public buildings is already banned anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 why on earth do the powers that be feel it necessary to ban smoking in 'local pubs for local people'. You know the places - everyone in there smokes (including the staff) and non-smokers are generally not in the least inclined to enter. I don't think that's been the case for a long time Chicken M. Smokers are without a doubt in the minority these days. I don't think that a partial ban would ever have been workable. At least a total ban creates a level playing field for all establishments and workplaces. If nobody can smoke, nobody needs to think about it the effects on staff and customers and premises any more. The belligerent few who will stop going out will just find that their 'protest' falls on stony ground while the rest of us just get on with what we were doing before, without the smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.