Wetherspoons Ban Smoking in their Pubs!
#121
Originally Posted by OllyK
Who is to say that one group of people should have more right to something than another??
The current attitude seems to be "ban it, unless it affects me or my way of life, stuff everybody else".
Why not try and find a better solution, why not make more effort to educate and provide alternatives?
The current attitude seems to be "ban it, unless it affects me or my way of life, stuff everybody else".
Why not try and find a better solution, why not make more effort to 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".
#122
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
**NEWSFLASH**
Ollyk is wrong and he can't take it.
I supposed there is a first time for everything, ye of all knowledge.
Ollyk is wrong and he can't take it.
I supposed there is a first time for everything, ye of all knowledge.
**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.
#125
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
"Educate and provide alternatives" ??
You do come out with some beautifully crafted ides - that are totally un-workable in real life.
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.
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".
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$ck everyone else".
It'll be interesting to see your stance when something you hold dear is at risk of being banned and others just say "ahh well f$uck him, it doesn't affect me".
#126
Originally Posted by OllyK
Who is to say that one group of people should have more right to something than another??
The current attitude seems to be "ban it, unless it affects me or my way of life, stuff everybody else".
Why not try and find a better solution, why not make more effort to educate and provide alternatives?
The current attitude seems to be "ban it, unless it affects me or my way of life, stuff everybody else".
Why not try and find a better solution, why not make more effort to educate and provide alternatives?
#127
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
That is exactly what you are doing.
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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??
#129
Originally Posted by 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".
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".
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
If smokers "hold smoking dear" I think that say's it all.
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.
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
"Olly" must be correct "K". You're wasted on here - try being a politician or a scientist.
#135
Originally Posted by OllyK
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.
#136
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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...
Sorry, OllyK but that is a FACT, whether your selfish attitude can handle it or not.
P.S. When in a hole...
Since when has sticking up for fundamental human rights been selfish?
#137
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OllyK
Like gassing Jews was for the common good of the German people?
Mate, that's tasteless. Smoking is a proven health hazard.
#141
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
"no". Cars actually have a use.
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?
#142
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?
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?
#143
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
Smoking achieves NOTHING positive for anyone. (I know I know I know - taxes).
#144
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
there's only one person that obviously views the world/his world in tunnel vision.
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
Mate, that's tasteless. Smoking is a proven health hazard.
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.
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#148
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.
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.
#149
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!!!
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!!!
#150
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
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.