What does everyone think of the new smoking laws

[Val]

What I meant was that if we do not have the right to do something then it is illegal, either by the justice system or by a set or moral or religious codes.

Therefore if you say that we do not have the right to smoke in our society is implying that it is illegal. Which it is not.

And for your information, the point I made at Durham was not as you stated. I was pointing out that in Britain, wa have a very narrow-minded view of history lessons, in which we learn, at numerous stages, about the Second World War or the Suffragettes. Now, I would happily enter into a debate on role of the Suffragettes in women gaining the right to vote in 1918, and I do believe that they played an essential part in the early emancipation of women, however, if children are leaving school with a basic knowledge of the Suffragettes and the Second World War, is there something wrong with the history curriculum? But that debate has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, I just wanted to make my position clear. I'm impressed you remembered though.

[lepeep]

the classic argument, that no one will ever win...

"Therefore if you say that we do not have the right to smoke in our society is implying that it is illegal. Which it is not. "

it's not illegal to smoke, but, it's fucking annoying for us non smokers, so, the smokers have it, they don't mind breathing in shit, or clean air...adapt and survive , eh.

[Val]

I have a question for those who agree whole-heartedly with the ban: what do you do or say when you are invited to a smoking friends' house? Ask them to smoke outside, refuse to go, or put up with it. I'm just curious.

[Gall_4185]

my friends who smoke all do so by open windows,so that's not an issue for me

[lepeep]

it's their house, I put up with it...

and your point is ?

(it's the cunts who have to spark up ever fucking COURSE in a meal that I fucking loath)..."ahh, that was a fine broth, *spark - suck suck suck*, ah, steakk and chips now (gobble gobble), *spark, suck suck suck*, mmm, trifle now....etc.

I want to ram patches up their arses.

[Stripey]

I have a question for those who agree whole-heartedly with the ban: what do you do or say when you are invited to a smoking friends' house? Ask them to smoke outside' date=' refuse to go, or put up with it. I'm just curious.[/quote']

This is a good point, you would have to be a complete cunt to have the audacity to ask someone who had invited you to their house to smoke outside.

The other side of the coin, if I'm at someone elses house I just assume that it's not alright to smoke, unless they do, or there is blatently an ashtray lying on the coffee table or whatever.

[Stripey]

it's their house' date=' I put up with it...

and your point is ?

(it's the cunts who have to spark up ever fucking COURSE in a meal that I fucking loath)..."ahh, that was a fine broth, *spark - suck suck suck*, ah, steakk and chips now (gobble gobble), *spark, suck suck suck*, mmm, trifle now....etc.

I want to ram patches up their arses.[/quote']

I'm told that in London it's safer to inhale the air through the filter of a lit cigarette

Yea as a smoker though, I don't understand how people can smoke during a meal, the tastebuds are diminished enough through the regular smoking.

[lepeep]

I'm told that in London it's safer to inhale the air through the filter of a lit cigarette .

tell me about it!...

heaps of people were coughing and spluttering on the tube this morning...

I bet a hottie up the beak would kill any germs...

PS, that wasn't a good point, about "your friends house"...

it's got no comparison to a pub what so ever.

[Stripey]

tell me about it!...

heaps of people were coughing and spluttering on the tube this morning...

I bet a hottie up the beak would kill any germs...

PS' date=' that wasn't a good point, about "your friends house"...

it's got no comparison to a pub what so ever.[/quote']

Yea I was just saying that for the sake of it...as far as pubs are concerned, I read somewhere that someone who's opinion carries some weight (yea sorry about the lack of research here, but I read it in the guardian so it was probably true haha.) suggested that "pubs are not health clubs, and the people who frequent them know this".

From personal experience I am far more terrified of drunken young people and their retarded behaviour than I am of a few wisps of smoke.

[lepeep]

that's very true, pubs are not healthy places, but, once again, it's the "other side of the point of view" that's missing here, Health spas would quite happily take smokers money, for them to sit there and do fuck all...

I wonder if now is the time to have "no smoking pubs" (as well as smoking pubs)...perhaps they would be busier ?

(I remember the old Union's "no smoking bar", it was always empty, a fine place for a break from the main bars, but dead as a door nail 90% of the night...)

perhaps somking will always have more sway with pubs than non smokers, and the people who care about "not being in smoke filled environments" will just stay away (as I do)..but the same side of the argument is that it's the people who work there, who can't get another job, who HAVE to stay in a fug all night, DON'T have a choice...

Blah....

Blah....

Blah...

[framheim]

Hahahahah. There is nothing about the crap you say that makes me think you have any understanding of the nature of freedom' date=' and since you frame it so naively in terms of "the recognised order of society whereby certain rights are limited or curtailed" then in my opinion, you yourself are not free.

Of course I'm not advocating the complete abolition of the rule of law, don't be absurd. The gradual erosion of civil liberties in the guise of moves like this smoking ban, or emergency "terrorism" legislation, is a hugely important issue, and if you can't understand a simple logical position which puts the rights of the individual before the rights of the government or commerce, you ought to stay out of discussions of these issues until you inform yourself better.[/quote']

it's got nothing to do with terror laws. you're very good at bringing in points that bear no relation to the actual thing being discussed.

i agree that the best argument against the ban is civil liberties but it's really not about civil liberties. it's not prohibition. they're not banning smoking everywhere. they're just protecting those who have no choice in the matter. half baked conspiracy theories have no place in a proper debate about public health.

i'm all for attacking the government normally but in this case the scottish executive are right. get over it and smoke out the front door. or go into the lovely covered beer gardens all the pubs are putting in.

[Stripey]

that's very true' date=' pubs are not healthy places, but, once again, it's the "other side of the point of view" that's missing here, Health spas would quite happily take smokers money, for them to sit there and do fuck all...

I wonder if now is the time to have "no smoking pubs"...perhaps they would be busier ?

(I remember the old Union's "no smoking bar", it was always empty, a fine place for a break from the main bars, but dead as a door nail 90% of the night...)

perhaps somking will always have more sway with pubs than non smokers, and the people who care about "not being in smoke filled environments" will just stay away (as I do)..but the same side of the argument is that it's the people who work there, who can't get another job, who HAVE to stay in a fug all night, DON'T have a choice...

Blah....

Blah....

Blah...[/quote']

As far as I'm concerned I think it should be down to individual premises to decide if they want to allow smoking or not, legislation against it is just hipocrisy on the part of the government while they continue to allow tobacco sales and collect tax on them.

[framheim]

that's very true' date=' pubs are not healthy places, but, once again, it's the "other side of the point of view" that's missing here, Health spas would quite happily take smokers money, for them to sit there and do fuck all...

I wonder if now is the time to have "no smoking pubs" (as well as smoking pubs)...perhaps they would be busier ?

(I remember the old Union's "no smoking bar", it was always empty, a fine place for a break from the main bars, but dead as a door nail 90% of the night...)

perhaps somking will always have more sway with pubs than non smokers, and the people who care about "not being in smoke filled environments" will just stay away (as I do)..but the same side of the argument is that it's the people who work there, who can't get another job, who HAVE to stay in a fug all night, DON'T have a choice...

Blah....

Blah....

Blah...[/quote']

the holburn bar has just gone no smoking.

[framheim]

As far as I'm concerned I think it should be down to individual premises to decide if they want to allow smoking or not' date=' legislation against it is just hipocrisy on the part of the government while they continue to allow tobacco sales and collect tax on them.[/quote']

er, i think the correct term would be a compromise. they're never going to ban tobacco, but they have to do something about scotland's astonishing poor health.

[Stripey]

er' date=' i think the correct term would be a compromise. they're never going to ban tobacco, but they have to do something about scotland's astonishing poor health.[/quote']

Yeah as if banning smoking in public places is going to stop people smoking? I'm telling you, a smoking ban is just hipocrisy, plain and simple. If the government gave a shit about public health they would outlaw tobacco. This is not gonna happen, because of the simple fact that the government is in bed with the kind of people who import and distribute tobacco, and they value the tax more than they value the lives of individuals.

[framheim]

Yeah as if banning smoking in public places is going to stop people smoking? I'm telling you' date=' a smoking ban is just hipocrisy, plain and simple. If the government gave a shit about public health they would outlaw tobacco. This is not gonna happen, because of the simple fact that the government is in bed with the kind of people who import and distribute tobacco, and they value the tax more than they value the lives of individuals.[/quote']

it doesn't matter so much if it stops people smoking but it'll help the health of those who work in these places. which is kinda the point that everyone has been trying to get through to the anti-ban faction throughout this entire thread.

saying they should outlaw tobacco is ridiculous. it'll never happen, not in our lifetime(thankfully this will be longer with a smoking ban).

anyway the government being friendly with tobacco companies is hardly a big surprise. you'll be shocking us all with revelations about government involvment in the arms trade and dealings with dodgy governments next.

[lepeep]

one thing the smoking side of the argument never tells us, is why should non smokers breath in the shit they spew out ?

they always go on about the rights etc, yeah, well, moot point, as bothsides have the "right" to do what they want...

I can give a list of reason why you SHOULD NOT smoke...I wan't a list of why I SHOULD smoke (passive / non passive)...

it's

cool

makes you look hard

"tastes lovely, first hand" (is that propoganda or what ?) tastes like burn shit to me, and yes, I've tasted a burnt shit, don't ask, my hampster died that night....

err....

it's cool...

damn, had that one...

[Stripey]

it doesn't matter so much if it stops people smoking but it'll help the health of those who work in these places. which is kinda the point that everyone has been trying to get through to the anti-ban faction throughout this entire thread.

saying they should outlaw tobacco is ridiculous. it'll never happen' date=' not in our lifetime(thankfully this will be longer with a smoking ban).

anyway the government being friendly with tobacco companies is hardly a big surprise. you'll be shocking us all with revelations about government involvment in the arms trade and dealings with dodgy governments next.[/quote']

You don't think its a bit rich to apply for a job in a pub and then complain that you are exposed to smoke?

You are missing the point here, there are more important issues at stake than the simple facts of smoking. Yes the government trades in arms, yes, the government makes money from tobacco, yes the government murders innocent people with impunity under the guise of "just war".

What you don't seem to understand is that tobacco isn't the enemy, the thing you should be outraged about is this kind of hipocrisy, but none of you give a fuck, clearly. Some of you pay lipservice to alternative attitudes but really none of you actually care as long as you can watch telly, play PS2, fuck your girlfriend and eat out once in a while. It's disgusting.

[feeble!]

You don't think its a bit rich to apply for a job in a pub and then complain that you are exposed to smoke?

You are missing the point here' date=' there are more important issues at stake than the simple facts of smoking. Yes the government trades in arms, yes, the government makes money from tobacco, yes the government murders innocent people with impunity under the guise of "just war".

What you don't seem to understand is that tobacco isn't the enemy, the thing you should be outraged about is this kind of hipocrisy, but none of you give a fuck, clearly. Some of you pay lipservice to alternative attitudes but really none of you actually care as long as you can watch telly, play PS2, fuck your girlfriend and eat out once in a while. It's disgusting.[/quote']

What the hell?

You just keep digging, don't you?

[Stripey]

What the hell?

You just keep digging' date=' don't you?[/quote']

I'M digging am I? So what the fuck did you just post this for?

[spellchecker]

What you don't seem to understand is that tobacco isn't the enemy' date=' the thing you should be outraged about is this kind of hipocrisy, but none of you give a fuck, clearly. Some of you pay lipservice to alternative attitudes but really none of you actually care as long as you can watch telly, play PS2, fuck your girlfriend and eat out once in a while. It's disgusting.[/quote']

you are just pissed off because you are a smoker, a frequent one at that. you are just as guilty of hypocrisy as anyone else - because you only pipe up (excuse the pun) when it suits you - i.e. when you are put out by the new legislation.

[Stripey]

you are just pissed off because you are a smoker' date=' a frequent one at that. you are just as guilty of hypocrisy as anyone else - because you only pipe up (excuse the pun) when it suits you - i.e. when you are put out by the new legislation.[/quote']

It has nothing to do with the fact that I smoke, I just actually give a shit about civil liberties and understand the importance of defending them. *shrug*

[spellchecker]

It has nothing to do with the fact that I smoke' date=' I just actually give a shit about civil liberties and understand the importance of defending them. *shrug*[/quote']

If I really believed that were the case, then I'd expect you to be rallying against some of the worse infringements on our "liberty".

[HeinzHines]

I'll try looking at this from both sides....and from the offset i'll tell you i am a pretty heavy smoker, just for the record.

Gridlock does raise a good argument in a way...the goverment dont really give that much a shit about peoples health, banning smoking out right is the only way the goverment would show they actually care about people health, never going to happen....its a simple case of basic economic maths, tax on one pack of 20 is probably about 3.50 (i get this from previously having worked in retail outlet of cigarettes and looking at the very small profit made to a shop per packet, so 3.50 is made up by me, but not too far from a real figure i reckon) there is probably 10million packets sold per day in Britian, so 35million per day is made, so roughly 12775000000million pounds per year in the pockets of the goverment...(is that nearly 13 billion by my rough calculation i think)...so an offset of how much it costs per year to fund smoking related illness and anti-smoking campagines etc vs money made from tax on cigarettes...of course they make more on fags than they spend on its affects, so yes it does smack of hypocracy when you think about it and i agree with gridlock that goverment really doesnt give two shits about public health.

Also i am interested to see how much fags go up by when the ban comes in, i think it was something like 1 in 10 smokers in Ireland quit after the ban was implicated....so if fags go up by about 50p, then their is no loss in tax revenue to the goverment at all. Which would leave another reek of shit about caring for the public etc...when we all know its about money!

Anyway....

I do, however, actually think the smoking ban is a good idea. Because i do believe in a non-smokers right to clean air etc...its not their fault they dont like the taste of a smooth blend alabama cigarette!

But i do also reckon the ban is too far...a small smoking room in any establishment is a fair cop for both sides of the argument...it doesnt harm anyone but a smoker and its quite cost effective to make...

Did i make any sense...i dont know

[Stripey]

If I really believed that were the case' date=' then I'd expect you to be rallying against some of the worse infringements on our "liberty".[/quote']

Well, I guess perhaps you just don't know me that well then. I haven't seen any threads in here talking about the detention powers blair is proposing or the already scandalous arbitrary arrests of innocent people on the streets of the uk on the slightest suspicion, leading to detention, searching of homes, forensic analysis of computer equipment and so on. Even though these things are happening now and have severe implications for all of us, like I said earlier in this thread, nobody seems to give a fuck. It seems that for most people on here it's enough just to adopt some safe second-hand viewpoint rather than actually thinking it over for themselves and developing an informed opinion of their own.