EchelonDivision Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 hmmm' date=' so if you can get non toxic smoke, couldn't you get non toxic cigarettes?[/quote']It's not actually smoke. It's Dry Ice (Nitrogeon Oxide). It's a gas. It's basically Carbon Dioxide and is present in the air anyway.Anything that burns give off toxins, so no you cant get non-toxic cigarettes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 I feel I am reasonably qualified to comment on this as I was a very heavy smoker who quit four years ago and am not one of those ultra- fascist reformed smokers. The bottom line is of course this ban is good because smoking fucking kills people and not just the smokers. It's a no brainer.The truth is that when you are addicted to something you see things from a warped perspective. If you smoke you become very defensive about it being restricted etc. Addictions overcome your basic human decency and common sense, you can be so hooked on something you beg, steal, get snappy with people around you when you can't get it. But just think for a second about smoking in pubs and the effect you are having on others. Forget the prissy "non smokers are all poofs" argument: smokers: you are fucking non-smokers up and you have no right to do that. People once found the idea of a ban on the underground ludicuous and outragoeus and now can't imagine otherwise: this will be the same. I think a smoking area wouldn't be a bad idea and no smoking on stage is ridiculous: actors smoking herbal cigs in plays harms no-one. But as far as pubs go, my view is it should be up to the landlord but if a pub goes non smoking thatit is incredibly selfish for smokers to object as it is not to punish them but to protect others. If someone I loved developed cancer from passive smoking etc etc.But while it being up to a landlord would be fine, if it was hardly any would do it for fear of ruining business. A ban for this is I would say perfectly reasonable because the health effects are SO huge and the only way to achieve it is by legislation. It's no more a violation of cilvil liberties than the laws for noise pollution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
child of the north Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 see I am all for the smoking ban' date=' what I find funny is, the people who say they want to have a pint without the without pasive smoking but hello your liver is also geting a bashing, a ban on beer soon?[/quote']Hurray! Ban alcohol as well while you're at it, I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neil ex Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 i cannot wait untill the day i caan breathe in drummnonds!I know, it's horrendous in there especially. I don't know why that place is one of the most smokey pubs I've ever been in. It can't be that there's more smokers in Drummonds than other pubs in Aberdeen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 From a purely selfish point of view, I'm upset about the spitting on shoes ban. As a spitter I simply like a spit with my pint.I'm aware that non-spitters don't like their shoes being spat on, I just don't care. I had the upper hand by being allowed to spit on people in bars and I'm gutted because I'm losing that right. As simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted February 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I love the smokers "argument" that because smokers will be forced out of the pubs' date=' their childeren will be subject to "more smoke"...well, shouldn't those smoking bastards be at home looking after the kids in the first place?!or are they only talking about the "once a month" they pop out to the pub for a sly fag, while the "kids" are looked after by a baby sitter?once again, a wonderful, logical argument from some desperate addicted people.[/quote']I sooooo love you....but you knew that already:love: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessHolly Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I'm pretty excited. I'll be able to come home after a night out and not feel like my lungs are dying. In a few years I think people will really wonder what the fuss was all about. I mean, I can't even believe that just a couple of years ago, you could legally drive and talk on your mobile phone. On reflection, what the fuck?! It's not even that long ago since you had to wear a seatbelt by law.In ten years time, people my age won't even be able to comprehend the fact that you used to be able to go into a club and force other people to breathe your smoke. Well, I hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessHolly Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 It tastes like soap and makes you want to throw up if inhaled in large doses. I've seen people putting their mouth to the nozzle before now hoping to get a hit. As far as I know' date=' though, it's non-toxic.[/quote']hahaha!! Whenever I'm drunk I always end up collecting the smoke in a glass and people are always amazed. It makes me feel like a magician. Mmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 see I am all for the smoking ban' date=' what I find funny is, the people who say they want to have a pint without the without pasive smoking but hello your liver is also geting a bashing, a ban on beer soon?[/quote']Sorry to state the obvious but there's no similarity. What you do to your own lungs or liver is your business. It's the effect it has on other innocent parties that is causing the ban. If drinking in the same room as someone rotted their liver too they would ban drinking in public but it doesn't. Whereas smoking in a pub does affect other people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neil ex Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I was in Dublin recently and there wasn't that many people nipping outside for a fag. There's a word now in Dublin though for when you go outside for a smoke and you chat up girls, that are also out for a smoke, that you wouldn't have had the chance to speak to inside. Some Irish bloke told me it, it's called 'smirting' or something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neil ex Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Smirting describes the social pastime of people flirting outside public places (e.g. public houses, cafes and restaurants) where smoking is forbidden or illegal —the term for the activity being a compound of the words smoking and flirting.Smirting is an especially common phenomenon in societies that have strictly enforced regulations banning the smoking of tobacco in public places (e.g., Ireland, California, New York City, New Zealand, etc). The term is thought to have originated in the Republic of Ireland sometime after March 29, 2004 (when tough legislation banning smoking in many public places came into effect there).With widespread media coverage[1] of the trend, the phenomenon has since become something of a humorous cult activity in many parts of the world.Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smirting"So the smoking ban could be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Savant Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 It's Dry Ice (Nitrogeon Oxide). It's a gas. It's basically Carbon Dioxide and is present in the air anyway.So what is it, Nitrogen Oxide or Carbon dioxide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash@TMB Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 So what is it' date=' Nitrogen Oxide or Carbon dioxide?[/quote']I very much doubt it's either. If it was Nitrogen Oxide then everyone would be falling about laughing LMAO! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.If it was CO2 then everyone would die, but the plants would thrive. It could possibly be frozen Nitrogen, that's plain old Nitrogen on it's own, but this is also unlikely as there are heavy restrictions on it's use due to safety issues. If for instance someone accidentally opened the cylinder it would freeze their hand off, or worse still put them in suspended animation like Walt Disney (allegedly). So my guess is that it's that horrible oil stuff that burns and fucks amps and speakers, and is probably worse for peoples lungs than tobacco smoke. But to the best of my knowledge it is not covered by the smoking ban.Someone will shortly be along to verify my facts on Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash@TMB Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I know' date=' it's horrendous in there especially. I don't know why that place is one of the most smokey pubs I've ever been in. It can't be that there's more smokers in Drummonds than other pubs in Aberdeen.[/quote']There might be but that's not what's making the difference. Many pubs these days have smoke filtration systems. If you look up on the Moorings ceiling then you'll see these 3 big brown boxes that sort of resemble molecular transporters. Sometimes you'll see people hanging about under one in the hope they'll be transported to the kebab shop, but unfortunately they are only there to take the smoke away. Perhaps after the ban we'll have them converted. But anyway they suck the smoke in the bottom, filter it though gauze, then through statically charged plates. The smoke particles stick to the plates. Once a month a man comes round in a van with clean static plates and swaps these for the dirty ones. Occasionally something bigger than smoke gets sucked up and you see a blue flash. In fact they are able to transport winged insects to heaven.The clean(ish) air comes out the sides. Smoke filters are a big improvement, but in all honesty you do still feel the effects of the smoke if you are spending a long time in the bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin' Ryan Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 There are quite a few' date=' what happens to the pubs that dont have the money or facility to create a smokers section? Do you think youngsters who have mates that smoke are going to sit in the non-smoker section and vice versa?The pubs who do create a smoking section, who do they pass on the cost of conversion to? correct, the drinkers.[/quote']If they can't afford to create a smoking section then they'd become a no smoking pub, as would be the law anyway.No, I don't think non-smokers would want to sit in the smoking section. I think the people who wanted a fag would pop across to the smokers section and have a cigarette, as opposed to standing outside, as the new law would have them do anyway.I'd pay the extra on my pint to be able to sit and have a fag, if you don't want to pay it then go to one of the many no-smoking pubs that would be created.All I'm saying is, give the owner the choice. If you don't like his pub because it's too smokey, then go somewhere else. People seem to think they have a human right to have Pubs and Clubs, you don't. It's a service provided by the owners, if you don't like their pub, don't go in. It's like becoming a Formula One racer and saying to the other drivers "excuse me guys but can we drive slow incase I get injured". If you don't want to take the chance, stay in smoke-free pubs, there's one on Holburn Street. Why do people still go to these smokey clubs if they're that bothered? Answer - they're not that bothered, they just like a moan. If your worried about your lungs don't go to clubs. I'm worried about idiots on the roads, so I don't drive, I don't go whining to the Government about making everyone drive at 10 miles and hour. Eventually I'll probably have to start driving for work purposes and take that risk, but nobody will have to come home from a night club with smelly clothes, so everythings fine.One more step towards a sterile, Americanised Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neil ex Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Aye, well you enjoy your horrendously painful death when it comes. And all because it's rock n' roll to smoke..The only time I have a cigarette now is one after work (stupid I know) and when I'm drinking (stupid aswell but I've cut that down a bit), and that I resent. I'm going to give it up properly because sometimes it makes me feel really really ill. I can't play football for more than 5 minutes without being out of breath. It's a fucking stupid stupid habit, that one can get out of doing.. It's got to the point where sometimes I don't actually enjoy smoking cigarettes anymore, as they physically make me feel ill but I crave them anyway. It's easy to say that anyone that doesn't want to stop is an idiot, but I think for some people part of the addiction is not wanting to stop. Proper evil evil drug.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HateEvent Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I very much doubt it's either. If it was Nitrogen Oxide then everyone would be falling about laughing LMAO! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.If it was CO2 then everyone would die' date=' but the plants would thrive. It could possibly be frozen Nitrogen, that's plain old Nitrogen on it's own, but this is also unlikely as there are heavy restrictions on it's use due to safety issues. If for instance someone accidentally opened the cylinder it would freeze their hand off, or worse still put them in suspended animation like Walt Disney (allegedly). So my guess is that it's that horrible oil stuff that burns and fucks amps and speakers, and is probably worse for peoples lungs than tobacco smoke. But to the best of my knowledge it is not covered by the smoking ban.[b']Someone will shortly be along to verify my facts on Google.Higher Chemistry + Google to refresh memory"When you place dry ice into some warm or hot water, clouds of white fog are created. This white fog is not the CO2 gas, but rather it is condensed water vapor, mixed in with the invisible CO2. The extreme cold causes the water vapor to condense into clouds. The fog is heavy, being carried by the CO2, and will settle to the bottom of a container, and can be poured. You can produce enough ground - hugging fog to fill a medium sized room with a pound or so of dry ice."Some machines will use Nitrogen aswell, but as you said Flash, there will without a doubt be restrictions on this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Why do people still go to these smokey clubs if they're that bothered? Because they want to have a night out and currently have no choice in the smoke issue? That's kinda the argument.....why should a non-smoker have to piss off home rather than go to a smokey pub/club? Feel free to adopt your above stance when you can't smoke in a pub/club - you can go home and smoke all you like! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim.. Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Personally I only used to smoke in pubs to be considerate to the young children walking the streets so that they didn't have to breathe my smoke on their way to school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted February 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 It's not actually smoke. It's Dry Ice (Nitrogeon Oxide). It's a gas. It's basically Carbon Dioxide and is present in the air anyway.Anything that burns give off toxins' date=' so no you cant get non-toxic cigarettes.[/quote']You are confusing a fog machine with a smoke machine, fog machines are very rare and rely on dry ice to create a fog which sits at floor level, a smoke machine uses non toxic liquid passed over a hot element which creates smoke.G... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tv tanned Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 All I'm saying is' date=' give the owner the choice. If you don't like his pub because it's too smokey, then go somewhere else. People seem to think they have a human right to have Pubs and Clubs, you don't.[/quote']Yes, and you think you have a human right to smoke in any enclosed public place, you don't. Do you moan about not being able to smoke in the wards of a hospital?The purpose of pubs i to facilitate the consumption of alcohol, not tobacco.Why do people still go to these smokey clubs if they're that bothered? Answer - they're not that bothered, they just like a moan. If your worried about your lungs don't go to clubs.Brilliant logic, so I should have a sterile social life simply because I do not wish to poison my lungs with your smoke? Give me a break. I'm worried about idiots on the roads, so I don't drive, I don't go whining to the Government about making everyone drive at 10 miles and hour.Do you avoid walking on the pavements as well? Bad drivers can get you anywhere you know. I assume you don't cross the road either in case one of these maniacs runs the red light? Or is this yet another example of ridiculous logic?One more step towards a sterile, Americanised Britain.Sometimes, just sometimes, the Yanks get something right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houdini Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 There is absolutely no conclusive proof that passive smoking causes cancer. I am sure Roy Castle will disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I am sure Roy Castle will disagree.Are they getting that strange ghost possession guy in to do a promotion thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scootray Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I am sure Roy Castle will disagree.That's the guy I was trying to think of during the reading of this thread, couldn't remember his last name though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeker Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Anyway a non smoking law will not make everything ok and if u think this you are nieve.....ok us as adults will no longer smoke in front of each other we will now all sit in the house on a friday saturday night and have a few drinks and smoke in front of the kids.... AYE GOOD FUCKING GOING......... .God help us if someone as blatantly stupid as you has been allowed to breed. I look forward to getting fries from them sometime in the future.Your logic really is entertaining. completely flawed though. Now run along and smoke yourself to death in your own house; there's a good 'boi'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.