Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Smoking Ban to become law...


PaulDW

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then why not support the aforementioned rational idea as opposed to this utter shambles of ban? The entire proposal is akin to cracking open a wallnut with a sledge-hammer.

Just because a pub has ventilation installed doesn't mean they'll switch it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea' date=' but you can't stick a catalytic converter on a fag...[/quote']

Catalytic converters need to get pretty hot before they start working, and that rarely happens in this country. Don't get me wrong, they reduce pollution to a degree, but it is immisions tests in MOTs that reduce the most harmful fumes from being spewed into our atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest to god' date=' what a lot of fucking shite! If you stink of BO and stale booze you should try taking a shower and spilling your drink less.[/quote']

I'm innocent, I swear

:rolleyes:

I wasn't in Ireland when the survey was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
Hook my neighbour's exhaust up to a showerhead and you have your very own concentration camp!

I find it ironic that you can say this with a straight face and then accuse Paul of being stupid.

Nobody is denying that cars are a cause of pollution, indeed that is why research is being paid for into fuel cell technology, and for cars to run on natural gas (Dundee City Council have all of their vehicles running on natural gas as I recall) to reduce this.

Your rabid inability to divorce the reality behind smoking from your pathological obsession with their being 'worse things out there' is what is stupid.

It is a little like saying that we should ignore the man who batters his wife to death because there are people out there like Harold Shipman, that is essentially your level of analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a job in a supermarket' date=' one of the many non-smoking restaurants or cafe's, infact there are hundreds of places you could work without having to catch a whiff of cigarette smoke. This is what Labour have fucking done, pandered to a nation thriving off compensation culture so people can get jobs in BARS then complain that they have to breathe in peoples smoke. If you were epileptic would you get a job in a night club then ask them to turn the strobe lights off incase you had a fit? Or if you went to some metal club and they were playing light dinner jazz because one of their bar staff suffered from migraine's, imagine your annoyance.

The mind boggles what people who have a particular aversion to smoke were thinking when they applied for a job in a BAR or PUB. It's not like there's a shortage of jobs in the servile job industry for experienced waiting/counter staff or such like, infact there's even a few non-smoking bars in Aberdeen from what I've read.

It should be up to the licensee at the end of the day, pubs are "public houses" they are owned by the publican and it's his right to choose whether people smoke in it or not, that way people who open non-smoking pubs can reap the benefits of the anti-smokers custom, whilst others can continue to enjoy smoking in specific places, at the choice of the owner.

As much as I hate to admit it, you wouldn't have seen this kind of Orwellian choice control under a Conservative Government.[/quote']

I take particular offence to the comment about -

"The mind boggles what people who have a particular aversion to smoke were thinking when they applied for a job in a BAR or PUB. It's not like there's a shortage of jobs in the servile job industry for experienced waiting/counter staff or such like, infact there's even a few non-smoking bars in Aberdeen from what I've read."

why the hell should i have to work somewhere else just because i dont like getting smoke blown in my face?

if you think about most people who work behind bars are hard up students desperate for money and can jump jobs all the time...

i myself work in a bar / resteraunt (which has banned smoking) and has made everyone who works there much happier to work there...

i think smokers are one of the most selfish people on the planet in all honesty.. what RIGHT do you have to give me cancer? i just cant see why you people put up so much of a fight.. it's not that inconvient to go outside for a fag? or wait until you get home...

and i think the reasons for the ban are great... it will be helping scotlands health ALOT, i know i often used to get really bad throat infections etc just from working around smokers and passive smoking.. it does fuck your throat up something rotten!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it ironic that you can say this with a straight face and then accuse Paul of being stupid.

I could certainly spell out what I find ironic about your arguments. But hey' date=' that would involve a banning of sorts, no doubt.

Nobody is denying that cars are a cause of pollution, indeed that is why research is being paid for into fuel cell technology, and for cars to run on natural gas (Dundee City Council have all of their vehicles running on natural gas as I recall) to reduce this.

It's convenient for the likes of yourselves to say "Oh, but we're researching this!", when an outright ban would solve the problem. Oh, wait, that's the same irrational and idiotic manner you've treated the smoking issue!

Car pollution hasn't produced the same manner of mass-hysteria that this shambles of a smoking "debate" has become associated with, either.

Your rabid inability to divorce the reality behind smoking from your pathological obsession with their being 'worse things out there' is what is stupid.

It is a little like saying that we should ignore the man who batters his wife to death because there are people out there like Harold Shipman, that is essentially your level of analysis.

My objections firmly lie with the manner in which the whole matter has been handled. The fact that the likes of yourself so firmly and blindly reject any form of compromise on the matter suggests that your intentions are wholeheartedly dishonourable and undemocratic, and that your only desire is to get your own stubborn and selfish way.

As for your level of analysis? "I hate smoking and smokers."

Woah, what an analytical and rational way to look at the matter.

Your attitudes towards those who choose to smoke are a clear indication of your true intentions. Why else would yourselves, as such bastions of moral upstanding, demonise those who like to light up now and then?

When a compromise can be so simple and effective (Ventilation and appropriate restrictions can accomodate 100% of bar patrons), there's only one reason people can reject it; selfishness and idiocy all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's convenient for the likes of yourselves to say "Oh' date=' but we're researching this!", when an outright ban would solve the problem. Oh, wait, that's the same irrational and idiotic manner you've treated the smoking issue!

Car pollution hasn't produced the same manner of mass-hysteria that this shambles of a smoking "debate" has become associated with, either.

[/quote']

Although, to be fair, cars are an essential form of transport for many people. Smoking, however, is simply the production of a lethal, addictive gas. At least cars have a "Pro" side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although' date=' to be fair, cars are an essential form of transport for many people. At least cars have a "Pro" side.[/quote']

Being a passionate car lover and owning a car that I'm never out of, I never thought I'd say this but here it comes anyway. Cars are not essential by any means. What did we do before them? Oh yes, we would walk, or ride horses or if you were rich enough, you'd employs some "misfortunates" to carry you around on a chair tied to two branches.

Smoking and cars are the same thing. Nice to have if you like that kind of thing, but if you don't, you avoid them. Simple. Exept my Mini. It's essential cause it is ace. And it's mine. So there.

:up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
I could certainly spell out what I find ironic about your arguments. But hey' date=' that would involve a banning of sorts, no doubt.[/quote']

Let it go.

Daddy is dead, but that doesn't mean that your uncle doesn't love you.

It's convenient for the likes of yourselves to say "Oh, but we're researching this!", when an outright ban would solve the problem. Oh, wait, that's the same irrational and idiotic manner you've treated the smoking issue!

Fair enough, ban cars as well then, I don't own one, so it is of little beef to me

Car pollution hasn't produced the same manner of mass-hysteria that this shambles of a smoking "debate" has become associated with, either.

Only one of us is being hysterical here, and it isn't me.

My objections firmly lie with the manner in which the whole matter has been handled. The fact that the likes of yourself so firmly and blindly reject any form of compromise on the matter suggests that your intentions are wholeheartedly dishonourable and undemocratic, and that your only desire is to get your own stubborn and selfish way.

And your only desire is what exactly? Please explain what is selfish about not wanting people to involuntarily breathe in cigarette smoke.

As for your level of analysis? "I hate smoking and smokers."

Being the son of a smoker and a former smoker I think that is a rather naive assumption. I have no hatred for smokers, smoking however is a disgusting habit and I'd happily outlaw tobacco.

My old man smokes between 20 and 40 a day and is in favour of a ban, I suppose he hates smokers too huh?

Your attitudes towards those who choose to smoke are a clear indication of your true intentions. Why else would yourselves, as such bastions of moral upstanding, demonise those who like to light up now and then?

There are already plenty of restrictions in place on public places that you can and cannot smoke in. We no longer allow open smoking in hospitals because the health impacts are accepted and recognised. (well except by the tobacco lobby) I see no reason why healthy people do not have the same protection from the health impacts as those who are already sick.

When a compromise can be so simple and effective (Ventilation and appropriate restrictions can accomodate 100% of bar patrons), there's only one reason people can reject it; selfishness and idiocy all round.

Ventilation eh? I worked in a bar which used a supposed state of the art ventilation system, and also had no smoking at the bar. Yet I still found myself reeking of smoke, and developing throat infections and watery eyes.

But I suppose I should have simply got another job since the job market is so flexible huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jake Wifebeater

Just thinking, if all these folk are so worried about their precious health, why don't they go down the gym instead of sitting on their arses typing on a computer? I wonder about the motives of people who would be so quick to ban things. What's next on your little crusade? Save us from our evil ways!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thinking' date=' if all these folk are so worried about their precious health, why don't they go down the gym instead of sitting on their arses typing on a computer? I wonder about the motives of people who would be so quick to ban things. What's next on your little crusade? Save us from our evil ways![/quote']

I cant see the point of you're argument, Its you that is damaging my health...its you who needs to do something about it, but because you are a selfish smoker who is quite aware of the damage caused by passive smoke yet wouldnt think of doing anything about it, the government is forcing the issue to save lives....yes save lives, dont you care that you are killing people?

You wonder about the motives....saving lives isnt a clear and acceptable motive to you?

Save us from YOU'RE evil ways!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jake Wifebeater
I cant see the point of you're argument' date=' Its you that is damaging my health...its you who needs to do something about it, but because you are a selfish smoker who is quite aware of the damage caused by passive smoke yet wouldnt think of doing anything about it, the government is forcing the issue to save lives....yes save lives, dont you care that you are killing people?

You wonder about the motives....saving lives isnt a clear and acceptable motive to you?

Save us from YOU'RE evil ways![/quote']

The point was I was pulling your leg, that's all. I said elsewhere I'm in favour of a compromise! I feel you're going a bit OTT about all this. That's just it, there's something zealous and puritanical about the whole thing which I find very disturbing and almost reminiscent of Christian fundamentalist intolerance here. The whole "selfish smoker", jeez, calm down. Yeah, I choose to smoke. I'm doing something YOU don't like. What a cunt I am! Ban me! Ban me! Ban that horrid, nasty, selfish, stinky smoking person!

So I'm killing people? Give me a fucking break. So I'm a murderer, am I? Is that what you're saying? Christ, you'll give yourself a hernia. You, of course, do nothing which damages anything around you being the model citizen you are. You've never been in a car, used an aerosol or eaten animal product or used a sheet of paper? We're ALL raping the earth.

I enjoy smoking, and that seems to be the hardest thing for people to stomach. How the hell am I damaging YOUR health? You're generalising here. Fact is, pubs have always been smoky environments, so why the hysteria and witch-hunting? This is what I find most distasteful about the anti-smoking lobby. They won't even THINK about a compromise for one fucking second. Segregated smoking areas would be a sensible solution but no, let's ban it. It's mollycoddling. What will you ban next now you're on the slippery slope of suppression? I'll say it again: if smoking was anywhere NEAR as unpleasant and revolting as you're kidding on it is, you wouldn't go within 50 yards of a pub or club. And before you start, no, I'm not saying "If you don't like it, don't go there". I'm saying you knew a pub/club would be pretty smoky, yet you STILL chose to enter the premises and that smacks of utter hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...