max Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 I disagree with the idea that a pub's business will suffer if you ban smoking. Most surveys have shown that more people would go into pubs if there were a ban on smoking. The only ones which come up with the alternate view are those conducted by the smoking lobby and their militant wing, FOREST. Go here for a report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,949191,00.html The Cask and Cutler on Langsett Road has a smoke free room which is usually full. They also have an excellent selection of beers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mo Posted May 14, 2003 Author Share Posted May 14, 2003 Interesting to see how this thread is going. If we are a representative sample then Gareth Thomas's bill should suceed. I don't know if any of the tabacco companies have made donations to Labour, it would be interesting to know (isn't this type of info supposed to be public knowledge? If so does anybody know how to find out? ) Call me cynical but it would be bound to have a bearing if donations had been made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senseofplace Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 If we banned everyone from doing anything at all either harmful to themselves or potentially to other people, small though the risk may be, we'd all be sitting at home with our hands on our laps worrying ourselves to death. Or we'd be dead. Smoking. Driving. Eating anything but organically grown/produced food. Crossing the road. Drinking (anything but water from a very remote mountain spring or organic fruit juice.) Handling money (all those germs). Using computers. Watching tv. Using detergents to wash anything at all. Having pets. Going out in the sun. Having a refrigerator. Using a mobile phone...etc etc Of course we should respect other people, and do our best not to cause others unnecessary discomfort. But let's please be realistic and reasonable about this. Trying to legislate for everything under the sun could only ever mean trouble. I value freedom too much to want to go around demanding bans on everything I personally dislike. Instead, if I feel that something someone is doing is bothering me, I either ask them politely to stop, or I go elsewhere. Laura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by "senseofplace" If we banned everyone from doing anything at all either harmful to themselves or potentially to other people, small though the risk may be, we'd all be sitting at home with our hands on our laps worrying ourselves to death. Or we'd be dead. Smoking. Driving. Eating anything but organically grown/produced food. Crossing the road. Drinking (anything but water from a very remote mountain spring or organic fruit juice.) Handling money (all those germs). Using computers. Watching tv. Using detergents to wash anything at all. Having pets. Going out in the sun. Having a refrigerator. Using a mobile phone...etc etc Of course we should respect other people, and do our best not to cause others unnecessary discomfort. But let's please be realistic and reasonable about this. Trying to legislate for everything under the sun could only ever mean trouble. I value freedom too much to want to go around demanding bans on everything I personally dislike. Instead, if I feel that something someone is doing is bothering me, I either ask them politely to stop, or I go elsewhere. Laura I understand what you are saying but without legislation against smoking in public places there would be fewer and fewer places to go where you could escape from it. It would then be the majority who end up staying at home as that would be the only smoke free environment. I'd much prefer that the smokers stay at home. Remember, it only takes one selfish smoker to fill a room with smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by "Hixxy" This is going to sound a little stupid. I don't agree with a ban on smoking in public places, but I'm all for banning smoking altogether. Let me explain. I am myself a smoker, and as a smoker I feel it my right to be able to have a cigarette when I go out for a pint, but if smoking were banned altogether it would give me no option but to stop. I have tried on many occaisions to stop smoking, (personal best - 2 weeks ) but my wife also smokes, and this makes stopping twice as difficult. A total ban would rectify this, and be better for me, my wife and every smoker out there, but as it stands with smoking being allowed, I feel it a bad move to ban it in all public places. I agree with this post 100%. This mirrors my sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mo Posted May 16, 2003 Author Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by "senseofplace" If we banned everyone from doing anything at all either harmful to themselves or potentially to other people, small though the risk may be, we'd all be sitting at home with our hands on our laps worrying ourselves to death. Or we'd be dead. Smoking. Driving. Eating anything but organically grown/produced food. Crossing the road. Drinking (anything but water from a very remote mountain spring or organic fruit juice.) Handling money (all those germs). Using computers. Watching tv. Using detergents to wash anything at all. Having pets. Going out in the sun. Having a refrigerator. Using a mobile phone...etc etc Of course we should respect other people, and do our best not to cause others unnecessary discomfort. But let's please be realistic and reasonable about this. Trying to legislate for everything under the sun could only ever mean trouble. I value freedom too much to want to go around demanding bans on everything I personally dislike. Instead, if I feel that something someone is doing is bothering me, I either ask them politely to stop, or I go elsewhere. Laura Laura, I really think that you are taking the argument to a ridiculous extreme and you are certainly not being realistic. This is not about merely disliking something though for some it could be. It is about being made physically ill by being subjected to peoples smoke or being prohibited from having the same access to places as everybody else. You can hardly equate smoking to using a mobile, handling money, drinking water and so on. Smoke stinks, is dirty, is harmful and its anti-social. I still maintain that my daughters right to breathe, overrides your right to smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senseofplace Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Yes, I admit to taking it to an extreme. To illustrate my point. However, I will back my point up this far - the things that I wrote down are not merely disliked. They are harmful. Or are believed at the moment to be harmful. Yes, some experts would say that your daughter IS safer occassionally breathing in cigarette smoke than talking a lot on her mobile. So yes, I can equate the two. My partner has a nearly fatal reaction to cat fur, even if the cat itself is not around - definitely and immediately harmful, but I am not demanding the removal of cats from all public places (at this time ). I'm actually quite concerned about the quality of the water we all drink and the evil bits and pieces it has in it (heavy metals, hormones, pesticides) and their long-term affect on us and our children. I might have gone overboard on the money, but driving is definitely harmful in many many ways (including exacerbating asthma). Going out in the sun, using detergents, most foods we're given - I stand by them all causing a significant amount of threat that we should be at least concerned if not worried about. And cigarettes. But I stand by my right to smoke in the open air if I so desire, and in any other public place where I am specifically invited to by the owners - AND believe it or not, as long as I feel that it won't be harming or bothering people who have no choice but to stay there. Laura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Personally i don't smoke but i read in the press recently about a possible public smoking ban and i was wonderin what other people think.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Maiden Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 erm - it doesn't affect me directly because I don't smoke but the whinging and whining we get when we go to Meadowhall 'cos the hubby canne have a smoke where he likes is unreal. It makes shopping a chore - which is NOT good. Generally I don't care - my husband stated he was fully prepared to sign one of those health contracts (in a thread not so long agao) to stop smoking and then he would stop paying tax and national insurance. Moon Maiden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halevan Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 People have a RIGHT to smoke if they wish, however I do object to having to breathe others tobacco smoke. I don't allow smoking in my home, or my car, I refuse to go anywhere where there is tobacco smoke, clubs, pubs, restaurants, any public place and that is MY right. Whilst I live, I want to be able to breathe and walk about and enjoy my life, not having to lie in a hospital bed gasping for breath or have my limbs amputated caused by passive smoking, ( yes really, that is what passive smoking causes .) ask any medical specialist. It has been said, well, why do they allow the maqnufacture of cigarettes then? why don't they ban them? well, it's not going to happen, is it? So, it is up to the individual, it is their choice, I don't care who smokes, but I do not intend to breathe the killer blue haze!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.