TheBigMan

"Educate and provide alternatives" ??

You do come out with some beautifully crafted ides - that are totally un-workable in real life.

Try being a realist on this point if you can swallow your pride for one small second.


Situation 1:

A smoker goes to a pub, a non smoker goes to a pub. 1 smokes, 1 does not. In this case, 1 person's activities are being forced onto anothers.


Situation 2:


A smoker goes to a pub, a non smoker goes to a pub. Neither smoke. The smoker, if they chose to smoke does so outside or in an allotted area. Therefore the non smoker is not at a detriment to anothers actions, and the smoker still gets to destroy his/her body without any harm to others.

Dare I suggest Ollyk's attitude is both lazy and that of "I'm alright Jack - f$ck everyone else".

OllyK

**NEWSFLASH**

TheBigMan is happy to eradicate the rights of anybody that doesn't fit in to the same cozy little box as him

Well that moved things forward didn't it?

I am pro freedom of choice, I am pro people being able to do what they want to do providing I am able to choose to avoid being affected by them excersising their rights if I so wish.

People smoking either doesn't affect me or I choose to go somewhere knowing full well it will affect me as that is the choice I make. It's called a democracy. If you want to be told what you can and can't do, where and when, move to a dictatorship.

TheBigMan

That is exactly what you are doing.

unclebuck

that's what we are moving to.

OllyK

Feel free to show me an example of a country where this has been tried and it failed.

What roll over and let you stampede over people's right - yeah OK!

non-smoker has a choice, move away from the smoker to another area, or leave the pub. To take somebody else's beautiful example, if somebody is sitting next to you on the bus farting, do you sit there and suffer it or get up off your *** and move some place else?

And by the same reckoning - your attitude is the same, Why should I have to stay out of the smoking area / room / a smoking pub, f$ck that group of people I am more important than them and they should do what I want despite the fact they have been allowed to do what they are doing for years.

It'll be interesting to see your stance when something you hold dear is at risk of being banned and others just say "ahh well f$uck him, it doesn't affect me".

darts_aint_sport

Maybe this is just me being silly, but I would argue that people who want to have the rights to good healthy living have a damn sight more of a right to be protected than people who want to smoke themselves and others around them to an early grave.

OllyK

How so? I don't smoke, the smokers are not in my box, I am just defending their rights to do something they have done for years. Just as it has been your right to go to a non-smoking area / room in a pub, or not go in the first place. You now want to erode smokers rights and improve your position at their expense.

OllyK

Who are you to make such jugements? As has been stated time and again, if you have health concerns about going to a pub, don't go to a pub.

You don't like something as it is so you want it changed until you can participate how you want to and stuff those who are happy with it as it is.

If the non-smoking health concerned bods out there were so bothered I wonder why smoke free pubs have not been created just for them. Seems so many people think it's a good idea, why hasn't it taken off prior to the government proposal to ban smoking in pubs??

TheBigMan

If smokers "hold smoking dear" I think that say's it all.

TheBigMan

Let's just bow down to OllyK's once again superior knowledge.

"Olly" must be correct "K". You're wasted on here - try being a politician or a scientist.

OllyK

I wouldn't know, but there are enough smokers out there that smoke, I assume at least some of them do so because they want to.

You could argue us car users are a dispicable lot knowing what damage cars do to the environment and public health, don't see too many of us giving them up and walking or cycling everywhere.

Would you be cheering the governement on if they banned cars due to the health risk they cause in terms of pollution as well as accidents?? A simple yes or no will do.

TheBigMan

Anyway - Weatherspoons have banned it and good on them.

Sorry, OllyK but that is a FACT, whether your selfish attitude can handle it or not.

P.S. When in a hole...

TelBoy

Yep, that's the way society is moving. Smoking has been legal in bars for a long time, that's indisputable. Whether it would have ever been if the risks were known from the outset is very debatable. Now that we know what we know, it's time to legislate in favour of the common good, as all good laws should do.

OllyK

No interest in the former, well qualified in the latter thank you.

TheBigMan

"no". Cars actually have a use.

OllyK

Do you want me to pass you a ladder or something? You seem to be liberal with the ad hominems and question avoidence and rather poor at explaining why eroding people's rights, whatever that right may be, is such a good idea.

Since when has sticking up for fundamental human rights been selfish?

OllyK

Like gassing Jews was for the common good of the German people?

TelBoy

Mate, that's tasteless. Smoking is a proven health hazard.

TheBigMan

We're being gassed.

TheBigMan

Don't dare question him!!! He is, after all, always right.

OllyK

Lol - you mean "cars actually have a use to me".

Not much use to people living out in the Amazon Rain forest and yet, if you believe all the global warming literature, they are being affected by the carbon dioxide we contribute to as car users.

Suddenly now that your rights are in danger it becomes important. Something has a use or a value to you and you consider that value to you as more important than the effect it is having on others.

How many faces do you have?

the moose

The problem I have is that as a non-smoker, I'm pretty much precluded from going to any pub, assuming, that is, that I find smoking objectionable. Although I don't especially like JD Wetherspoons pubs, I find myself going to them precisely because there are defined smoking/non-smoking areas. These aren't perfect, but they're a start, at least.

I don't necessarily want a complete ban, but I want a pub where I can enjoy a drink, a chat, and possibly some food without coming out a few hours later needing to wash my clothes and hair, and with my eyes stinging.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

TheBigMan

This could go on forever. Cars are important as a means of transport, and as most people don't live in the Amazon rainforest....

Smoking achieves NOTHING positive for anyone. (I know I know I know - taxes).

TheBigMan

No, that is not too much to ask at all. 99.9% of the sane people on here seem to agree to.

there's only one person that obviously views the world/his world in tunnel vision.

OllyK

Sure, so is the selective eradication of freedom. Direct smoking has some pretty hard evidence to support the damaging effects. The passive smoking links are nothing like as strong.

Deaths per year of non-smokers from lung cancer is pretty small in comparison, 100's rather thans 10's of thousands. While many claim a link to passive smoking there are often other contributary factors. At best they are able to claim an elevated risk of lung cancer from passive smoking.

It makes sense to me that passive smoking would be a significant health risk, the reports to date do not bare that out. Other carcinogens (including car pollution) can produce an even higer risk of cancer than passive smoking.

"appeal to numbers" is logical fallacy and does not mean that something is right just because a lot of people share the same opinion - I appologise if my example of this was a little colourful.

TelBoy

But if there's ANY risk from passive smoking, AND the majority are in favour of a non-smoking bar AND the bar's profits increase - where's the problem? Keeping the status quo compromises one, two or all three of those benefits. Seems a no-brainer to me.

OllyK

Yes but you choose to do be gassed - how dumb is that?

Jerome

Actually, OllyK is not on his own.

I cannot see why smoking bans have to include the whole pub. A totally enclosed and separately ventilated smoking room should keep everybody happy. But no, even that concession is too much for the fervant anti-smokers.

Nezz10

I am a social smoker (I know give up while I can etc etc) so the ban doesnt really bother me. Although I usually smoke more when drinking.

What I can see happening is that whilst smoking is banned inside I am sure that the JD's that have an outdoor area will allow smoking in this area. So come the summer when its lovely and sunny (ok one day in the year) the outside area will be packed with smokers, leaving the smoking ban inside to no effect. Will they be bannng smoking in this area too?

I think that the JD plan has two sides to it too, with no smoking allowed most smokers will drink more. If a group of your mates (half smokers and half non) go to JD's you will probably go anyway but just go outside for a ***. So more non smokers will go to JD's because of the ban and most smokers will be spending more because they cannot smoke when they want.

Obviously there will be some hardcore smokers that will stop going because of the ban but I think that increased sales due to the reasons above will more than overcome this.

I BET THEY WILL STILL HAVE CIGARETTE MACHINES IN EVERY JD'S THOUGH WONT THEY!!!

OllyK

Not at all, and as you say, some pubs are making an effort to satify everybody by better ventilation or separate non-smoking rooms. This approach is inclusive rather than exclusive.

Whether people ought to be smoking as a general principal is a different issue, I personally think it would be better if they didn't, but that doesn't mean we should terminate their right to smoke because we can't be bothered to seek out an alternative.